J.S.KESAR, J. - (1.) THIS is revision petition under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, challenging the order dated 1.10.2002 of Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, the order dated 24.12.1999 of Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Collector, Phillaur and order dated 11.10.1999 of Assistant Collector II, Guraya.
(2.) AS per the brief facts, the respondent No. 1 has filed an application before the Assistant Collector II-cum-Naib Tehsildar, Guraya at Phillaur for correction of khasra girdawari in respect of the land located in village Kang Jagir, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar from Kharif 1998 onwards. This relief was sought on the ground that land was with the respondent on patta @ Rs. 8000/- per acre and he was in cultivating possession of the same since Kharif 1998. Assistant Collector Grade II offered the correction of khasra girdawari with effect from Rabi, 1999, vide order dated 11.10.1999. The application of the petitioners before Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum- Collector, Phillaur was dismissed vide order dated 24.12.1999. The revision petition before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar was also dismissed on 1.10.2002. Hence, the present second revision petition against the order dated 1.10.2002, passed by the Divisional Commissioner. I have heard the ld. counsel for both the parties. The main plea taken by the counsel for petitioners is that the orders correcting the khasra girdawari were passed when the matter was pending in the Civil Court. Not only this, prior to passing the order by the Revenue Authorities, the Civil Court had already given its findings to the effect that the petitioners were in cultivating possession. The ld. counsel has drawn my attention to the facts that Jit Kaur died on 9.7.1994 and the petitioners inherited this property on the basis of registered will. The mutation No. 2613 was also sanctioned accordingly on 13.7.1994. In the jamabandi for the year 1991, Jit Kaur has been recorded as owner. After inheritance mutation, the petitioners had been recorded as owner in the jamabandi for the year 1995-96. Joginder Singh, the husband of the deceased filed a civil suit No. 475 of 1995 in the Court of Civil Judge, Phillaur challenging the will and the mutation. My attention has been drawn to the order dated 12.5.1999 passed by the Civil Judge, Phillaur, the relevant portion of which reads as under :- "If the jamabandi and khasra girdawari as placed on the record by the plaintiff are seen, the defendants are shown in possession of the suit property. Thus, prima-facie it cannot be held that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property. Hence, since the plaintiffs are prima-facie unable to show that they are in possession of the suit property." According to the above observation, the present petitioners have been shown in possession on 12.5.1999. Accordingly, the order of the A.C. IInd Grade, dated 11.10.1999 annulled on the plea that the case is pending in Civil Court in view of the specific observation of the court regarding possession khasra girdawari entries cannot be changed. The ld. counsel has further drawn my attention to the order of Sub Judge (Senior Division), Phillaur dated 19.11.1999 vide which the application of Jasbir Singh and Satpal Singh, etc. filed under order 39, Rule I and II read with Section 61 CPC has been dismissed. In this order, the possession of the petitioners on the land in question has been clearly upheld. The ld. counsel has referred to Judgments Today 1998-JT(9)(SC)-227 in which it is clearly held that khasra girdawari entries made during the pendency of civil litigation were incompetent being hit by principle of lis pendens and meaningless and have no legal effects. Such entries would cease to have any legal efficacy.
(3.) I have considered the arguments put forth by ld. counsel for both the parties and have gone through the relevant record. Interestingly, the order of the Collector dated 24.12.1999 also confirms the possession of the petitioners, which has also been upheld by various civil court decisions. Further the status quo has been ordered by the civil court regarding change of possession. The petitioners are held to be in possession of the land in dispute there is a stay order against their dispossession. The revenue authority cannot change the entries in the revenue record till the final decision by the Civil Court. The Collector and Divisional Commissioner in their respective orders have erred in dismissing the appeal and revision petition of the petitioner knowing it fully well that the petitioners are in possession and this possession has been upheld by the Civil Courts. The entries in the khasra girdawari are to confirm the factum of the possession, which goes in favour of the petitioners. These facts clearly lead to the conclusion that the orders of AC II, Collector and the Divisional Commissioner are not in accordance with the law and suffer from grave legal infirmities. Accordingly, the revision petition is accepted and the orders of the lower revenue courts are set aside. Announced. Revision allowed.;