Gian Devi vs Gurdas Ram

B.K. Srivastava, F.C.

Respondent Gurdas Ram applied for correction of girdawari of khasra No. 119//20(77) and No. 118//16 Min (37) from Kharif 1999 onward. He had purchased this land and mutation was sanctioned in his favour. This application was opposed by the present petitioners on the ground that a stay order had been granted in their favour by civil court in a declaratory suit filed by them. The appellant i.e. the present respondent argued that the stay in the declaratory suit did not specifically forbid correction of girdawari.

The disputed land was visited by the Assistant Collector GradeII, Bagha Purana on 9.6.2000 in the presence of respectables of the village. He found that the present respondent was in possession of the land as purchaser from the (sic). Girdwari was accordingly corrected in his favour vide order dated 9.8.2000. The District Collector Moga, vide order dated 5.4.2002 dismissed the petitioners'' appeal. It was brought to the Collector''s notice that the declaratory suit had been dismissed by the civil Court on 8.8.2000 which rendered the stay order infructuous. The Division Commissioner, Ferozepur, vide order dated 4.2.2003 dismissed the revision preferred by the present petitioners. He held that the corrected girdawari had already been incorporated in the jamabandi.

Perusal of the grounds of appeal preferred by the present petitioners, Gian Devi etc. before the Collector reveals that they did not assert their possession in the specific field numbers for which correction of girdawari was claimed by the respondent as vendee from joint khata of which the petitioners were cosharers. The petitioners merely argued that girdwari of specific numbers could not be claimed as the land was purchased from joint khata which consisted of many other khasra numbers.

I should clarify here that there is a difference between mutation and girdawari. While mutation of land purchased from joint khata is not sanctioned in terms of specific khasra numbers, the girdawari which is a record of cultivation has to be recorded with respect of specific field numbers possession of which is received by the transferee/vendee. Cosharers of joint khata often make internal arrangements for cultivation in a manner so that each cosharer occupies and cultivates a specific portion and when he transfers each specific portion, he is able to transfer its cultivating possession to the transferee/vendee.

Petitioners have failed throughout to show any evidence to disprove the cultivating possession of the respondent. Spot was seen by the Assistant Collector in the presence of both the parties. The present petitioner Gian Devi even thumb marked the panchayati settlement in favour of the vendee but retracted later.

The Assistant Collector passed order for correction of girdawari on 9.8.2000 whereas civil Suit No. 532 of 1.10.1998 filed by the present petitioner and Bula Ram etc. had already been dismissed by the civil Court on 8.8.2000. Another suit No. 223 dated 7.10.1998 was also dismissed by Additional Civil Judge, vide order dated 19.2.1999. The interim relief granted to the petitioners in civil suit No. 81 dated 19.4.2000 granted vide order dated 10.5.2000 was also set aside by the Additional District Judge, Moga, vide order dated 23.12.2000 a copy of which has been attached by the counsel for the respondent.

The impugned order of District Collector, Moga dated 5.4.2000 is in detail which I need not reiterate. It reveals that there is neither a dispute regarding title of the vendor from whom respondent purchased the land nor there is any fact or evidence to contradict the finding of the Assistant Collector regarding cultivating possession of the respondent/applicant on the land in question which he purchased.

In view of the above facts and observations the impugned orders are upheld and the revision petition is dismissed.

Announced.