- (1.) The appellants pray that order dated 16.08.2012, dismissing their writ petition, may be set aside.
(2.) Counsel for the appellants submits that as the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Kharkhoda, had directed correction of khasra girdawaries, the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, had no jurisdiction to set aside this order. It is argued that as a khasra girdawari is recorded to reflect possession and compromise deed dated 11.04.1989, clearly records that the appellants shall continue to cultivate 10 acres of the disputed land on batai, the entry of the appellants' possession was rightly recorded, by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Kaithal. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in ignoring the compromise deed which clearly proves the cultivating possession of the appellants. The compromise deed confers a legal status on the appellants as Gair Marusi, and, therefore, was required to be reflected in the khasra girdawaries.
(3.) We have heard counsel for the appellants, perused the impugned order as well as orders passed by revenue authorities and find no reason to interfere.;