R.N.GUPTA,J - (1.) THIS is a revision petition filed under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act against the order dated 21.12.2004 passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Amarjit Singh, petitioner filed an application for correction of Khasra Girdwari in respect of Khasra No. 43 area measuring 14 kanals 11 marla situated in village Khokhar Tehsil Batala District Gurdaspur w.e.f. Kharif 1992. After inspecting the spot, the A.C. Ist Grade Batala ordered that the Khasra girdwari in respect of the subject land measuring 10 kanals 11 marlas be corrected reflecting the name of Amarjit Singh to the extent of 4 kanals and Hazoor Singh w.e.f. Kharif 1992 vide order dated 23.1.1996. Aggrieved by this order Hazoor Singh filed an appeal before the Collector Batala who accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the A.C. Ist Grade vide order dated 20.8.1999. Aggrieved Amarjit Singh went in appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, who dismissed the same vide order dated 21.12.2004. Hence the present revision. Sh. G.S. Nagra, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the entries of corrected Khasra Girdawari had already been incorporated in the Jamabandi for the year 2001-2002 and the petitioner has been shown in possession of 10 kanals 11 marlas and the respondent has been shown in possession of 4 kanals. It was further contended that the disputed land belongs to the Punjab Wakf Board and the petitioner had taken the said land from the Wakf Board on lease for the year 2005-06 and 2006-07 and has also referred to the Khasra Girdwari in the name of the petitioner from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007. It was also asserted that during the pendency of the present ROR the respondent filed an application for correction of the Khasra Girdawari of the suit land on 21.5.2007 before the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Fatehgarh Churian. Despite the fact that the Assistant Collector was aware that the matter is pending before this Hon'ble Court, he proceeded with the case unnecessarily harassing the petitioner in the process. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the proceedings before the A.C. 2nd Fatehgarh Churian be stayed and the revision petition be accepted.
(3.) SH . R.D. Bawa, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the petitioner has lost his case in the civil Court and as such the Collector and the Commissioner had rightly accepted the claim of the respondent. It was further submitted that the respondent is in actual possession of the suit land and the present revision petition may be dismissed.;