Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) We are called upon to answer the following reference: "Notice of motion." On being asked, Mr. Jaswinder Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, has accepted notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the caveator has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No.4. Undisputedly, respondent No.4 herein had filed a suit for declaration and joint possession pertaining to the property in dispute. Undisputedly, Civil Court has issued ad interim injunction to the effect that parties shall maintain status quo and no third party interest shall be created during the pendency of the suit. Undisputedly, during the pendency of the suit respondent No.4, who happens to be the close relative of the Reader of the Assistant Collector, moved an application for correction of khasra girdawri. Undisputedly, during the pendency of the civil suit, learned Assistant Collector after alleged spot inspection has directed correction in the khasra girdawri recording possession of respondent No.4. The sole question arises before this Court is As to whether during the pendency of the regular civil suit, involving question of title and possession, revenue authorities have any jurisdiction to conduct spot inspection to change the entries in the khasra girdawri enabling one of the litigants of the civil suit to create defence or plea in his favour? Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in three cases i.e. Lachhman Singh & ors. v. Rachna, 1991 PLJ 66 , Samma Singh v. Kapur Singh and others, 1997(2) PLR 791 : 1997 (Suppl) Civil Court Cases 133 (P&H) and Sulakhan Singh v. Prema, 2002(1) PLR 335 and has argued that during the pendency of the civil suit correction should not be permitted to be carried out by the revenue authorities in the khasra girdawri. In the opinion of this Court, judgment of the Civil Court pertaining to the title and possession shall have binding effect over the revenue authorities and revenue authorities should not carry out correction in the khasra girdawri about the possession of either of the party before the Civil Court otherwise it would amount to permitting the revenue authorities to sit over the Civil Court's finding. Even otherwise ultimately Civil Court judgment shall prevail and entries are to be made as per the judgment of the Civil Court, therefore, entire exercise of the revenue authorities to correct the khasra girdawri would be in futile. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 has placed reliance on the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Shri Niranjan Singh and others v. The Financial Commissioner, Punjab (Revenue) and others, 1979 PLJ 352 and has argued that learned Single Judge has held that correction can be carried out by the revenue authorities during the pendency of the civil suit and ultimately finding of the Civil Court shall prevail and again correction can be made as per finding of the Civil Court. With respect, I do not agree with the observations recorded by learned Single Judge in the case of Shri Niranjan Singh (supra) for the reason if ultimately entries are to be made in accordance with the Civil Court judgment, therefore, it seems unnecessary permitting the revenue authorities to carry out amendment during the pendency of the civil suit. In the opinion of this Court and in view of the conflicting views, matter requires consideration by the Larger Bench. Let this matter be placed before Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice to refer to the Larger Bench to decide as to whether revenue authorities are competent to carry out correction in the khasra girdawri in favour of one of the litigants, who is party in a pending civil suit involving question of title and possession during the pendency of civil suit? "Meanwhile, parties shall maintain status quo. However, this interim order shall not preclude the Civil Court to proceed with the suit without being prejudiced from the status quo order."
(2.) Before, we embark upon an appraisal of the question posed, it would be appropriate to refer to the facts of this case. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 6.12.2010 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade (SDM), Patiala and order dated 17.5.2011 (Annexure P-6), passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala, by which an application filed by respondent No.4 (Sumana Devi) for correction of khasra Girdawari, has been allowed.
(3.) The property in dispute was owned by Jagir Chand, who had the following family members: ;