B.S.YADAV, J. - (1.) THE facts giving rise to this Revision petition and as disclosed during arguments and from the various orders produced before the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur as well as from the impugned order are that an area of land measuring 6 Kanals 13 Marlas comprised in Khasra No. 14/1 of Rectangle 37 was owned by the Central Government. It was purchased by Buta Singh (deceased) and the Tehsildar (Sales) issued the sale certificate on 9th January, 1981 in his favour. That khasra number is divided by a water-course. Three kanals of land, which is in dispute, out of that killa falls on the western side of the water-course. The land of Naranjan Singh, present petitioner, adjoins those 3 kanals of land. The dispute arose between Buta Singh and Naranjan Singh over possession over those 3 kanals. Naranjan Singh instituted a suit on 12th October, 1981 against Dalbir Singh (son of Buta Singh) and others praying for the grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession over the land. Interm order about status quo was made on 9th November, 1981. On 9th November, 1981, the Subordinate Judge dismissed the application for the grant of ad-interim injunction and vacated the stay order. Against that order Naranjan Singh preferred an appeal in the Court of District Judge, Ferozepur, but he to dismissed it on 4th May, 1962. While the civil litigation was going on, the police presented the calendar under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code (for short the Code), on 26th February, 1982 in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate Zira, in which Naranjan Singh and his son Jit Singh were arraigned as party No. 1 while Dalbir Singh and his father Buta Singh as party No. 2. During those proceedings the orders passed by the civil court were produced. Party No. 2 also produced Jamabandi for the year 1978-79 and Khasra Girdawaris for the years 1974-75 to 1980-81 in which documents in the cultivation column Buta Singh was recorded in possession of the whole land measuring 6 kanals 13 marls. Naranjan Singh produced copy of khasra Girdawari entry for Kharif, 1981 in which in the cultivation column he was recorded in possession of the disputed three kanals of land. Vide order dated 2nd June, 1982 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate held that Naranjan Singh of the first party was in possession of the disputed 3 kanals of land while the rest of kill No. 14/1 was in possession of the second party. Against that order Dalbir Singh (Buta Singh having died) filed revision petition before the sessions Judge, Ferozepore, while those proceedings were pending, Naranjan Sing filed an application for correction of the khasra Girdawari entries with respect to those 3 kanals in relation to harvests for kharif, 1980 and Rabi, 1981. Dalbir Singh and others also filed an application for correction of the Khasra Girdwari entries of Kharif, 1981 with respect to those disputed 3 kanals of land. Vide order dated 11th June, 1981 the Assistant Collector, II Grade allowed the application of Naranjan Singh and dismissed that of Dalbir Singh and others. On 19th October, 1981, Naranjan Singh also filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Zira, exercising the powers of Sales Commissioner. In that appeal Naranjan Singh raised a dispute only regarding the disputed 3 kanals of land and claimed that he was in continuous possession over the land. The Sales Commissioner vide order dated 7th July, 1982 set aside the order of the Tehsildar (Sales) and regarded the case to him for fresh decision on merits. Copies of these order were produced before the Sessions Judge, Ferozepore. However, as those orders had come into existence during the pendency of the civil litigation Session Judge did not allow them to be produced as additional evidence and rejected the application of Naranjan Singh filed in this court for that purpose However it may be mentioned here that against the order dated 7th July, 1982 passed by the Sales Commissioner, Dalbir Singh and others perhaps filed an appeal before the Chief Sales Co missioner. Copy of the order passed by the said officer has not been filed but perhaps it was rejected as the sons, widow and daughter of Buta Singh filed appeal/revision before the Commissioner, Ferozepure Division, against the order passed by Chief Sales Commissioner and the sales Commissioner. The said officer vide order dated 12th April, 1983 stayed the implementation of the orders passed by the Sales Commissioner and Chief Sales Commissioner as well as the pending in the lower court till 23rd May, 1983, which was the next date fixed in the case before him. The sessions Judge accepted the revision petition, filed by Dalbir Singh in the instant case, on 10th April, 1983 and held that Buta Singh (deceased) and his son Dalbir Singh were in possession of the land in dispute within two months of the institution of the proceedings and they were entitled to be restored the possession. Feeling aggrieved against that order, Naranjan Singh has filed this revision petition in this Court on 27th April, 1983.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner argued that enquiry under section 145 of the Code is limited only to the question as to who was in actual possession on the date of the preliminary order irrespective of the title to the parties. He further argued that the learned Sessions Judge has taken into consideration the sale certificate granted to Buta Singh. There is no dispute as far as the proposition of law is concerned but the learned Sessions Judge has taken into consideration the sale certificate, only for holding that the authorities must have verified the factum of possession of Buta Singh over the disputed land before making the transfer in his favour. The sale certificate was not taken into consideration by the Sessions Judge for holding that Buta Singh was the owner of the disputed land. It was next argued that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had given a finding of fact to the effect that Naranjan Singh was in possession of the disputed land and the mistake in the Khasra Girdawari entries was subsequently corrected by the competent authority. As for as the order regarding correction of khasra Girdawari entries is concerned, it came into existence after the institution of the proceedings. In fact, it had come into existence even after the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed the order holding Naranjan Singh in possession of 3 Kanals of land in dispute.
(3.) AS far as the finding of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate about the possession of Naranjan Singh over the disputed, land is concerned, it is vitiated by an error on a point of law. Chanda v. Ram Chander, 1980 PLJ 561 (Pb, and Hr.) was cited before him and he did notice the observations made in that case to effect that where possession of the party is established in the earlier Jamabandi entry, and the latter Khasra Girdawari entries cast a doubt on the possession of the party in possession for no rhyme or reason and are unsupported by an document, mutation or order of competent officer effecting the change, presumption of truth attached to the earlier jamabandi entries remains unrebutted. In spite of those observations the said officer ignored the entries existing in the jamabandis for the year 1978-79 and the entries in the Khasra Girdawari for the years 1974-75 to 1980-81 and preferred the entired in the Khasra Girdawari produced by Naranjan Singh. In the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate it has been further mentioned that Khasra Girdawari entries from kharif 1979 to kharif 1981 were in the name of Naranjan Singh, However, that fact is incorrect. The name of Naranjan Singh appeared for the first time in the khasra Girdawari entries in kharif 1981. As noticed earlier, he himself had filed an application for correction of the Khasra Girdawari entries for the harvests of kharif 1980 and Ravi 1981 which was allowed subsequent to the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. In such circumstances the finding of fact arrived at by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is vitiated by misreading of evidence.;