Judgment:
Ashok Bhan, J.
1. Plaintiff-respondent Sher Singh (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit out of which the present revision petition has arisen under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, for possession in respect of land measuring 6 Kanal 15 Marlas and of the land measuring 4 Kanals 17 Marlas out of the land measuring 27 Kanals 7 Marlas bearing Khewat No. 1200, Khatoni No. 1878 and Khasra No. 131 on the basis of possessory title. The suit was contested by Bachan Singh and other defendant-petitioners. The present revision petition has been filed by Bachan Singh petitioner defendant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant). Shortly stated, facts are:
2. Plaintiff in his plaint averred that he was in possession of the land measuring 27 Kanals 7 Marlas for the last more than 12 years, that the said land 20 Kanals belonged to Punjab Wakf Board. Out of the said land 20 Kanals land was cultivable while rest of the land was lying uneven and the plaintiff made the same cultivable. It was further averred that land measuring 20 Kanals was on lease with him from the Wakf Board which was renewed from time to time and the remaining land was in his possession as he occupied the same.
3. Defendants resisted the claim of the plaintiff in the written statement filed by them through their counsel. It was stated that the suit was not maintainable in the present form and was also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; that the suit had become infructuous as the possession had been delivered to the defendants legally by the Punjab Wakf Board. On facts, it was stated that the defendants were in possession of the land in suit as per the revenue record for the last more than 30 years. It was denied that the defendants had taken possession of the land in suit forcibly.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:-
1. Whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land for a period more than 12 years? OPP
2. Whether the defendants have encroached upon the suit land forcibly on 15.8.1987 as detailed in para No. 2 of the plaint? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the suit land? OPP
4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD
5. Whether the suit has become infructuous? OPD
6. Relief.
5. On issues No. 1 and 2 which were dealt-with together, trial Court found that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land for more than 12 years and the defendants had encroached upon the suit land forcibly in August 1987. Issue No. 3 was decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff. On the basis of findings recorded on these issues, it was held that suit of the plaintiff deserved to be decreed partly for possession of land measuring 7 Kanals 7 Marlas out of the land measuring 27 Kanals 7 Marlas. Being aggrieved, defendants have filed the present revision petition.
6. I have heard the counsel for the parties at length.
7. A perusal of the revenue record shows that the plaintiff was shown to be in possession for the last more than 20 years immediately prior to August 1987. A reference in this regard may be made to Exs. P. 19, P. 20 and which are Jamabandis and Khasra Girdawaris in which the possession of the plaintiff has been recorded. According to the revenue record, defendants came in possession of the suit land in Kharif 1987. Earlier the entries of Kharif 1987 were in favour of the plaintiff but later on were changed on the basis of an inspection held by Assistant Collector IInd Grade. It has not been shown as to how the defendants came in possession of the suit property. It has not been shown as to how the Khasra Girdawaris came to be changed in the year 1987. This Court in Amal Kumar and Ors. v. Bhupinder Singh and Ors., 1976 P.L.J. 26, had held that any change in Khasra Girdawaris without following the procedure laid down in the instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner for effecting change in the Khasra Girdawaris was bad in law. It was held therein as under :-
' The Financial Commissioner has prescribed the mode for effecting changes in the existing Khasra Girdawaris. According to the instructions, it is the duty of the Patwari before making any change in the existing entry at the time of harvest inspection to notify in writing the person or persons likely to be adversely affected by such a change of the entries and retain on record proof of the notifications. Further, the changes so made should be attested by thee Lambardar or the Panch of the village. Entries made in violation of the said instructions shall be treated null and void at the time of attestation of the Jamabandi or at an earlier stage. Under Section 11 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, the Financial Commissioner has the general power of superintendence and control over all Revenue Officers and in that capacity, he has got a right to issue such instructions. These instructions have been issued to put a curb on the unrestricted powers of the Patwaris to manipulate the Khasra Girdawaris in the way they desired.
It is the duty of the Patwari before changing the Khasra Girdawan and making an entry in favour of the tenant to inform the landowner so that he can come and contest the new entry, which is to be made by him, if he so desires.'
8. In this case, admittedly the procedure as given in the instructions issued by the Punjab Financial Commissioner Under Section 11 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1858, has not been followed. Plaintiff was shown to be in possession for the last more 20 years as per the revenue entries with regard to 7 Kanals 7 Marlas land. The trial Court rightly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff.
9. For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this revision petition which is dismissed. No costs.