G.R. Majithia, J. - (1.) THE writ -Petitioner has sought a mandate from this Court to the Respondents to pay compensation for land measuring 2 Bighas and 2 Biswas comprised in Khasra No. 671/543 situate in Badungar, District Patiala, or in the alternative to restore possession of the land to him.
(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts as stated in the petition are that the Petitioner is the owner of land measuring 2 Bighas and 2 Biswas comprised in Khasra No. 671/543. Respondent No. 1 has appropriated this land for the construction of pucca road. The land has been acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and no compensation has been paid to the Petitioner. The Petitioner moved various representation to the authorities but to no effect The Petitioner has been deprived of his right to property in violation of the right ensured under Article 31 (2) of the Constitution. Reply has been filed on behalf of the Respondents in which it has been stated, inter alia, that originally the land comprised in Khasra No. 671/543 was recorded in the Record of Rights as owned by "Sarkar Daulat Madar". Mutation No. 334 was sanctioned and this land was transferred in the name of Raja Harchand Singh Son of Shri Bhag -want Singh. This land is recorded as "Ghair Mumkin Sadak" under the possession of the Public Works Department in the Jamabandi for the year 1940 -47. According to the revenue record, the road existed at the site even after the implementation of Mutation No 334. It was also objected, that the Petitioner had moved this, Court after the expiry of more than 40 years since the road has been in existence for the last more than 40 years.
(3.) THE title of the Petitioner over the property in question has been very seriously disputed by the State and, in my opinion, rightly. In the Jamabandi for the years 1946 -47 and 1950 -51, the land in dispute is shown to be under the ownership of "Sarkar Daulat Madar Mazkur". Mutation No. 334 was enacted and sanctioned and ownership of the land in dispute was recorded in the name of Raja Harchand Singh. It cannot be disputed that the provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (for short "the Act") were applicable to the then princely State of Patiala. Section 37 of the Act provides that entries in records of rights or in annual records, except entries made in annual records, by patwaris under Clause (a) of Section 35 with respect to undisputed acquisitions of interest referred to in the section, shall not be varied in subsequent records, otherwise than by (a) making entries in accordance with facts proved or admitted, to having occurred (b) making such entries as are agreed to by all the parties interested therein or are supported by a decree or order binding on those parties; and (c) making new maps where it is necessary to make them Entries in Jamabandi can be altered only on the basis of an obvious clerical error or patent fact (to be distinguished from a disputed fact) especially after the lapse of years and in the absence of any appeal against the alleged wrong entry. A safeguard is provided by Section 37 of the Act which enacts that the new entries must be in accordance with facts proved or admitted to have occurred or be agreed to by all the parties interested therein, or be supported by a decree or order binding on those parties. In the present case, the revenue officer while altering the ownership of the land in dispute of Raja Harchand Singh violated the mandatory provisions of the statute with impunity. A revenue officer who had little knowledge of revenue law would have hesitated to sanction the mutation changing the ownership of the State to a private individual in the absence of any of the conditions of Section 37 having been proved. The question of ownership with regard to the land in dispute can only be decided in a regular suit and not in these proceedings.;