A. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7, 11 – Shamilat deh – Eviction petition – Title dispute – Scope of summary proceedings -- Parties had raised question of title and the ld. Collector and the ld. Appellate Authority decided the matter in an exceptional hurry, without even granting proper opportunity to both the parties to place on record to their respective evidence before the same -- In such cases, the effective recourse for the Collector would have been to undertake such an exercise by expanding the scope of proceedings from Section 7 to Section 11 of the Act as the eviction proceedings under Section 7 of the Act are summary in nature and such summary proceedings can cause prejudice to either party.

(Para 13)

B. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g), 7 -- Abadi deh – Exclusive use as abadi deh – Common purposes usage -- Shamilat deh -- Eviction petition – Maintainability of – It was to be seen as to whether the land was exclusively used as 'Abadi Deh', then it would not have been included in the 'Shamlat Deh' and the petition u/s 7 of the Act on behalf of Gram Panchayat in respect of such land would not have been maintainable -- If the land fell within 'Abadi Deh' and was used or reserved for the benefit of village community including the pond, then it would be included in the definition of 'Shamlat Deh' and the Gram Panchayat would be entitled to maintain a petition u/s 7 of the Act.

(Para 14)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 -- Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar -- Criminal case against candidates – Non-consideration by Collector – This would be a relevant consideration which has been kept open for the Collector to go into and form his own opinion – Remand order upheld.

(Para 1-4)

A. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 4(2) – Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (8 of 1954), Section 50(a) – Constitution of India, Article 254 – Challenge to Section 50(a) of Delhi Reforms Act, 1954 – Repugnancy in two Acts -- Concurrent list III -- Question of repugnancy would not come into existence unless it is first established that both enactments are under the Concurrent list (List III) – 1954 Act is not referable to any matter enumerated in List III but it is referable to Entry 18 of List II -- Thus, no question of repugnancy would arise in view of Article 254 of the Constitution.

(Para 18, 19)

B. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 4(2) – General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), Section 6(b) (c) -- Repeal of Section 4(2) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Prospective effect -- Deletion of Section 4(2) took place w.e.f 09.09.2005 therefore, the effect of the deletion can only be in respect of successions which opened on or after 09.09.2005 -- This is because under Section 6(b) and 6(c) of the General Clauses Act repeal cannot affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed and cannot affect any right which may have been acquired or accrued.

(Para 23-25)

C. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 4(2) – Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (8 of 1954), Section 50(a) – Repeal of Section 4(2) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 w.e.f. 09.09.2005 – Prospective effect -- Property in question is agricultural property, and therefore, in 1997 on death, the devolution of interest (inheritance) would be determinable on the said date, in accordance with the law existing at that time -- Subsequent deletion would not have any impact on the rights of inheritance, which had already accrued and crystallised, prior to the amendment -- Even existence of Section 4(2) in the 1956 Act and its deletion will not have any impact for the reason that the 1954 Act, is a special law, dealing with fragmentation, ceiling, and devolution of tenancy rights over agricultural holdings only, whereas the 1956 Act is a general law, providing for succession to a Hindu by religion as stated in Section 2 thereof -- Existence or absence of Section 4(2) in the 1956 Act would be immaterial.

(Para 21-26)

D. Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (8 of 1954), Section 50(a) – Constitution of India, Article 14, 15, 21, 254 – Challenge to Section 50(a) of Delhi Reforms Act, 1954 -- Gender bias/ women empowerment  -- There can be no challenge to the 1954 Act as the said legislation is included in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India.

(Para 28)

E. Amendment in statute -- Prospective effect -- It is well settled that all amendments are deemed to apply prospectively unless expressly specified to apply retrospectively or intended to have been done so by the legislature.

(Para 23)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (22 of 1984), Section 102, 128 – Jurisdiction of civil Court – Rejection of plaint -- Question of law is whether in view of Section 102 read with Section 128 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies  Act, 1984, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred? – Prayer is to grant a decree of mandatory injunction directing defendant No.1 to hand over the complete documents with a consequential relief of declaration that conveyance deed in favour of defendants No.1 to 3 is illegal and liable to be set aside.

-- Though the trial Court allowed the application, however, the lower appellate Court recorded a finding that since in the civil suit, there is pleading of fraud with regard to execution of the conveyance deed, on the basis of certain documents, which were prepared by the defendants in collusion with each other, therefore, the Civil Court will have jurisdiction and the plaint is not liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

-- The lower appellate Court also recorded a finding that Section 102 read with Sections 128 & 130 of the Act deals with reference of the dispute to an Arbitrator and regarding bar of jurisdiction of the Courts, however, nothing is stated under Section 128 of the Act that jurisdiction of the Civil Court will be barred, if a suit is filed on the basis of fraud.

-- At the stage of deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the Court is primarily to see the pleadings in the plaint or the documents attached with the plaint.

In the plaint, it is specifically pleaded that conveyance deed has been executed in favour of defendant No.2 by playing fraud -- Therefore, question of law decided in favour of respondent No.1-plaintiff -- No illegality or infirmity with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court.

(Para 2-8)

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994), Section 200(1) – Panchayat matter -- Appointment of Administrator – Challenge to -- Within the time prescribed, the Gram Panchayat was unable to pass a resolution for carrying out the development works -- One of the Panches defected to the other side and because of this quorum was incomplete -- No resolution could have been passed for executing the development works – DDPO was justified in passing an order of appointment of Administrator – Writ dismissed

(Para 3, 4)

Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (19 of 1994), Section 66 -- Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994, Rule 33 -- Election of Panch – Recounting of Votes -- As per the election petitioner (respondent No.4) four votes were wrongly rejected, whereas as per the petitioner (respondent in the election petition) only two votes were rejected -- There is no clarity from the order as to how many votes were in fact rejected -- Order set aside leaving it open to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Election Tribunal, to pass a fresh order within 15 days on the issue of recounting of votes.

(Para 2-6)

Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (19 of 1994), Section 66 -- Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994, Rule 33 -- Election of Sarpanch -- Re-counting of votes – Non-speaking order -- Order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Election Tribunal, ordering re-count of the votes for the post of Sarpanch cannot sustain, as the said order is a non-speaking one without considering and detailing the reasons and the evidence on which it is based -- Order, set aside and direction issued to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Election Tribunal, to re-consider the matter and pass an appropriate order, in accordance with law within a period of 15 days -- Writ petition allowed.

(Para 4-6)

Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887), Section 9(1)(i) – Ejectment of tenant -- A big land owner (owner owning land in excess of the permissible area) and every tenant holding land in excess of the permissible area was duty bound to furnish a declaration disclosing the extent of the land owned by him -- No such duty has been cast upon a small land owner (person holding land less than the permissible area) -- Thus, the submission that a small land owner was required to get a declaration to this effect is illogical – Held, a small land owner is not required in law to approach the concerned authorities for such a declaration – Petitioners/tenants could also have produced proof by way of revenue record to establish that respondent No. 5 was a big land owner but nothing of the kind was done -- Petitioners cannot escape eviction.

(Para 6-8)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 121, 158 -- Partition of land – Jurisdiction of civil court -- Bar of Section 158 of the Land Revenue Act, 1887 -- Rejection of plaint -- Suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are the exclusive owners in possession of the suit land with declaration that the order passed by the Assistant Collector, First Grade, partitioning the property is null, void and beyond jurisdiction – Application for rejection of plaint dismissed -- Held, power under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC can be exercised only if the court comes to a definite conclusion that the suit is barred by law -- It is a well settled principle that under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, the plaint cannot be rejected partly -- A plaint can either be rejected as a whole or not at all -- Hence, no ground to interfere is made out – Revision dismissed.

(Para 1-6)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 13, 13-A -- Shamilat deh – Jurisdiction of civil court -- Primary question which arises for adjudication would be, “As to whether the land meant for the construction of school playground is Shamlat deh or not?” – Section 13 bars the jurisdiction of the court to entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether any land or other immovable property is Shamlat deh or not -- Exclusive jurisdiction to decide such question vests with the Collector.

(Para 3)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 16(1)(f) -- Conviction of Lambardar u/s 420, 467 & 468 IPC – Release on probation – Moral turpitude -- Dismissal of Lambardar – Held, Rule 16(1)(f) provides for dismissal even on account of conviction in a case involving moral turpitude -- Petitioner has been convicted in a case of cheating and forgery and the same involves moral turpitude -- Thus, the authorities below were justified in dismissing the petitioner.

(Para 1-3)

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 35 (For Punjab) -- Suit for specific performance -- Unregistered agreement to sell with possession – Agreement to sell insufficiently stamped -- Impounding of document by Trial Court – Penalty equal to 10 times of deficiency – Trial Court has interpreted Section 35 of the 1899 Act in a manner as if imposition of penalty of 10 times is mandatory, this is not the correct position of law – There is no evidence that the plaintiff was in the knowledge of the amendment carried out and he, intentionally, evaded the payment of the stamp duty --  Court considered appropriate to direct the plaintiff to pay the amount of deficient stamp duty along with an equal amount as penalty.

(Para 5-7)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 -- Mutation – Civil Court decree – Duty of Revenue officers -- It is duty of revenue officials to incorporate the decree in the revenue record in letter and spirit and the impugned order dismissing the application for entering the mutations, cannot be upheld in any manner -- Petition allowed, Naib Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, directed to sanction the mutations in terms of the Civil Court decree in letter and spirit, within a period of 15 days.

(Para 12)

A. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Shamilat deh – Eviction order set aside in appeal – Writ petition -- Delay and laches of 34 years – Gram Panchayat challenging the order passed on 08.02.1988 – No explanation, only submission, that the Commissioner did not have the jurisdiction to pass an order dated 08.02.1988 and, therefore, the said order would be null and void -- When confronted with the statutory provisions, the counsel has not been able to substantiate the same – Writ petition dismissed on delay and laches.

(Para 1, 2)

B. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7 – Allotment of land – Breach of condition – Onus to prove – Eviction -- Case of the Gram Panchayat for eviction hinges is that the land was given to the forefather of the private respondents by the village community on the condition that they would hand over the land back to the village community if they ceased to provide artisan services as carpenter and blacksmith to the village community and that since these private respondents have ceased to provide such artisan services, they are liable to be evicted from the land – Onus was on the Gram Panchayat to establish that there was any stipulation at the time of allotment of land -- Merely because some of the family members have adopted some other professions does not in itself mean that the said persons are liable to be evicted from the land in question, especially when nothing has come on record, which would indicate that it was a conditional allotment of land to the forefathers.

(Para 3,4)

C. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g), 7 – Unauthorised possession -- Respondents had never paid anything to the Gram Panchayat as rent or share of the produce -- They had, however, been paying land revenue like other land owners -- Forefathers of the private respondents have been occupying the land much prior to the period of 12 years before the commencement of the 1961 Act and, thus, they cannot be said to be in unauthorized occupation of the land and, therefore, they are not liable to be evicted from the land being unauthorized occupants.

(Para 6)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Appeal and stay application pending before Joint Development Commissioner – Non decisioning of – Writ jurisdiction -- Earlier stay application for constructed portion decided – Second application for stay for entire land pending -- In order to avoid any further delay in disposal of the appeal, Court deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petitions with a direction to Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab to decide the stay application(s) afresh expeditiously, preferably within a period of 15 days on receiving a certified copy of the order -- Till the time the stay application(s) is decided by respondent No. 2/appellate authority, the status quo shall be maintained.

(Para 7)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Correction in revenue record – Writ jurisdiction -- Note in the revenue record that the property of the petitioner is under mortgage – Submitted that said entry is illegal and, thus, an application has been moved for removal of the note but no action has been taken and thus legal notice issued -- Writ petition disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2 to decide the pending legal notice by passing a speaking order within twelve weeks.

(Para 1-5)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 – Revision/ Stay application pending before Financial Commissioner – Non-consideration of – Writ jurisdiction – Revision and stay application filed on 13.10.2021 but the same has not been taken up for consideration – Writ petition disposed of with a direction to Financial Commissioner to take up the pending revision petition on the next date of hearing along with the stay application -- Till the decision of the stay application, there shall be a stay of dispossession.

(Para 1-6)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Appointment of Lambardar -- Pendency of revision before Financial Commissioner – Stay declined -- Writ jurisdiction -- Petitioner confines his prayer for a direction to the Financial Commissioner to decide the pending revision petition – Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the concerned Financial Commissioner to dispose of the pending revision petition as early as possible and in any case within a period of one year.

(Para 1-4)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16, 121 -- Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Sanad Takseem – Revision/ Stay petition pending – Warrant possession – Writ jurisdiction – Sanad Takseem challenged before Financial Commissioner, the matter has not taken up even for preliminary hearing – Meanwhile warrants of possession have been issued – Writ petition disposed of with a direction to Financial Commissioner to take up the pending revision petition alongwith stay application – Till the decision of the stay application, dispossession of the petitioners shall remain stayed.

(Para 1-5)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Mutation entry – Writ jurisdiction – Contention that Tehsildar has refused to enter a mutation, even though, civil proceedings have been finalized, thus, the concerned official needs to be hauled up -- Only prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the revenue authorities to perform their statutory duty as stipulated in Section 34 of the Act, 1887 -- If, an erroneous order has been passed, it can be challenged in accordance with law -- Writ petition disposed of.

(Para 1-4)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13 – Haryana Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – One candidate for post – Fresh munadi – Legality of -- Total three candidates had applied but two had withdrawn their candidature and, accordingly, the matter was remanded for a fresh munadi so that more candidates could apply and a meritorious candidate could be selected -- Appellate and revisional authorities refused to interfere as there is no perversity -- Writ petition has no merit, dismissed.

(Para 1-4)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 -- Mutation of inheritance sanctioned -- Representation to police for taking action for getting mutation sanctioned illegally – Petition u/.s 482 Cr.P.C – Police conducted enquiry and it was found that at the time of sanction of mutation of inheritance, pedigree-table was prepared and the same was witnessed by Namberdar and legal heir of deceased was also present – After inquiry application was consigned to record room – Challenge to the mutation order is pending before Civil Court -- No further orders are required to be passed in the petition.

(Para 1-5)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Mutation on the basis of Will – Remedy of -- Mutation order passed by Commissioner –  Finding has been returned that the registered Will is not suspicious at all, exclusion of the petitioners therefrom was on the ground of pending criminal litigation with them – Submission that party who claims on the basis of Will must approach the civil Court rather than seeking a mutation on the basis thereof cannot be accepted.

(Para 1-4)

Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (31 of 1973), Section 4, 5 -- Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g)(4) -- Public premises – Shamilat deh -- Gair Mumkin Charagaha -- Zumla Mushtarka Malkan Va Digar Haqdaran land -- Eviction orders challenged in writ petition – Petitioners purchased land from the proprietors of the village, mutation entered, their names find mentioned in the jamabandi – Held, land in dispute recorded as 'Gair Mumkin Charagaha' -- According to Section 2(g)(4) PVCL Act, 1961 (as applicable to Punjab) shamilat deh includes lands used or reserved for the benefit of the village community -- Land of 'charagaha' is shamilat deh vests in the Gram Panchayat -- Argument that the Gram Panchayat had no authority to file an application under the Act cannot be accepted -- Impugned orders further show that there are entries of Zumla Mushtarka Malkan Va Digar Haqdaran as well -- Even such land vests in the Gram Panchayat – Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 1-4)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Correction in revenue records – Writ jurisdiction -- Writ petition disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the pending representation by passing a speaking order within eight weeks.

(Para 1-5)

Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887), Section 8 – Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 (8 of 1953), Section 2(a), (f), 3 -- Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953) -- Abolition of occupancy – Ownership rights – Eviction proceedings -- Jurisdiction of civil Court/ Revenue authorities -- A declaration as to whether the tenant has attained the status of owner in view of the provisions of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 read with 1952 Act, is required to be decided by the Civil Court and the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to grant such declaration – As per the scheme of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 read with the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, the eviction of a tenant cannot be ordered by the revenue authorities, whereas the declaration qua ownership on account of abolition of the occupancy can only be granted by the Civil Court -- After allowing the parties to litigate for a period of 7 years, when the suit was matured for decision, the Court chose to pass orders adjourning the case sine-die – Order set aside, Civil Court requested to proceed with the suit.

(Para 2-8)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g), 11 -- Shamilat deh – Title dispute – Gair marusi -- Jamabandi since the year 1935-36 indicates the land to be 'Shamlat Deh' -- All the records since the earlier time to the cut-off date of 26.01.1950 indicate that the Gram Panchayat has been entered as the owner in the column meant for the said purpose -- In the Jamabandi since the year 1976-77 till 2006-07, the Gram Panchayat is entered in the ownership column and on the other hand, petitioners have been shown as Gair Marusi, which shows that they are in illegal possession of the land – In the absence of any evidence to the contrary that the petitioners are in cultivating possession of the land prior to 26.01.1950, the petitioners cannot be declared the owners of the land in question.

(Para 7)

A. Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994), Section 200(1) – Panchayat matter -- Appointment of Administrator -- Argument that an Administrator can only be appointed, if, the Sarpanch has incurred a disqualification is mis-conceived -- Section 200 (1) of the Act does not lay down any such stipulation for appointment of Administrator.

(Para 5)

B. Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994), Section 200(1) – Panchayat matter – Non-passing of resolution – Dead-lock -- Appointment of Administrator -- Resolutions by a democratically elected body can be passed only on the basis of a majority and if, the body is unable to pass a resolution on account of a dead-lock, Section 200 (1) of the Act would get attracted as the Panchayat would have failed to perform a duty which it was bound to perform.

(Para 6)

A. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 31, 34, 37 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 124 – Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7 (iv)(c) -- Gift deed – Suit for declaration and permanent injunction -- Annulment of Gift deed – Advalorem court fee -- Gift is without consideration, and possession has not even been delivered and continues to be in the possession of the executant  -- Gift deed has been challenged on the ground of fraud -- No court fee is required to be paid.

(Para 9)

B. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 31, 34, 37 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 124 – Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7 (iv)(c) -- Gift deed – Suit for declaration and permanent injunction -- Annulment of Gift deed – Advalorem court fee -- Neither any consideration amount is involved nor relief of possession of the property is sought for, the petitioner/ plaintiff cannot be directed to pay ad-valorem court fee.

(Para 11)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Alternative remedy of Appeal/ Revision – Writ jurisdiction – Challenge to order passed by the Tehsildar, whereby attachment has been made on account of recovery proceedings for dues of Rs.83,39,159/- to the government -- Held, orders passed by the Assistant Collector, Collectors and other Revenue Officers are appealable and revisionable – Petitioner has also alternative efficacious remedy available to him – Writ petition is misconceived on the face of it and resultantly, the same is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.

(Para 5)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 – East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 18 -- Revenue records -- Change in -- Consolidation proceedings – Land earmarked for  gairmumkin khal – Change to public path – Permissibility of -- Merely because it is not being used for the said purpose cannot be a ground for changing the revenue record and terming it as a public path as the same is used for the said purpose -- Area which has been earmarked during consolidation for a specific purpose cannot be changed without there being justifiable reasons for the same -- According to the report of the Tehsildar, the Government tubewell in existence is meant for the purpose of irrigating through the said khal so earmarked -- Since the revenue records all through have been mentioning it as a khal, the nature of the said entry cannot be changed at the behest of a private person.

(Para 4)

Haryana Chowkidar (Watchman) Rules, 2011 – Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13 -- Appointment of village chowkidar – Appeal against -- Rules do not provide for remedy of an appeal, but order passed by the Collector who is a revenue officer and thus, appeal can be filed under the 13 of the Act, 1887.

(Para 2)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 34 -- Mutation on the basis of natural succession -- Will not considered by Patwari – Remedy of appeal -- Administrative action against Patwari – Writ jurisdiction -- Complaint to Deputy Commissioner for taking administrative action against Patwari -- Financial Commissioner directed the Deputy Commissioner to take necessary action, yet, no action has been taken – Held, if, the Deputy Commissioner is not complying with the orders, the petitioner should approach the Financial Commissioner – High Court does not exercise jurisdiction over administrative directions issued by the Financial Commissioner – So far as, the grievance regarding sanction of mutation is concerned, remedy of an appeal is available to the petitioner – Writ dismissed.

(Para 1-5)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Age of candidate – Relevance of – Argued that age of the petitioner actually was 53 years at the relevant time but has been noted as 76 years by the Collector – Held, this would not amount to be perversity that vitiates the order -- Actual reason given for appointment of the private respondent is that he is an Ex-serviceman and deserves benefit for the same -- This factor has weighed with the appellate as well the revisional Courts and, thus, no interference is called for in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India -- Writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.

(Para 3-5)

Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (26 of 1972), Section 11(2), 18(6) -- Allotment of surplus land – Non-payment of timely installments – Cancellation of allotment – Permissibility of – Petitioner was allotted 22 kanals and 1 marla on 30.11.1976 out of the surplus pool -- First installment was paid and possession was delivered on 07.07.1978 -- Remaining installments could not be deposited annually – Amount deposited in a lump sum alongwith interest on 27.05.2015 -- Soon thereafter application for entry of mutation was made – Held, Clause 11(2) stipulates that in case the installments are not deposited in time the same can be recovered alongwith interest @ 10% p.a. as arrears of land revenue -- No statutory provision has been pointed out which may provide for cancellation of allotment, if the installments are deposited belatedly – Writ petition allowed, Collector directed to ensure that the mutation is entered within four weeks -- Further action be also taken to ensure that the same finds mention in the subsequent jamabandies.

(Para 1, 5-7)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Allegation of cheating -- Choice of the Collector must be respected unless the same is shown to be perverse and illegal -- Allegation that the appellant had taken an amount of Rs.2,60,000/- for making arrangement to avail loan but when the same did not fructify, the money was also not being returned and at this stage a complaint was filed against the appellant before the Inspector General of Police -- Compromise was entered into and an amount of Rs.2,60,000/- was returned by the appellant -- This being based upon the documentary evidence has gone against the appellant while the revenue authorities have considered the claim of the appellant – Court did not find any justifiable ground for interfering with the well-reasoned order passed by the revenue authorities, which have been rightly approved by the learned Single Judge – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 9-11)

A. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 13, 13-A (Haryana) -- Shamilat deh/ Gram Panchayat land – Title dispute – Jurisdiction of civil Court -- Jurisdiction to decide any dispute as to whether any right, title or interest in any land or immovable property vests in the Gram Panchayat or not, would exclusively lie with the Collector, to the exclusion of the Civil Court.

(Para 9)

B. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 13, 13-A (Haryana) -- Shamilat deh/ Gram Panchayat land – Title dispute – Suit for injunction -- Relief claimed in the civil suit involves the adjudication of rights of the parties over the suit property, hence, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court over the matter would, therefore, be barred u/s  13 of the Act.

(Para 10)

C. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 13-A(1)(2) (Haryana) -- Shamilat deh/ Gram Panchayat land -- Injunction – Power of Collector – Contention that there was no alternative remedy available to plaintiffs for restraining the defendants, is devoid of any merit -- Section 13-A(2) of the Act provides for deciding the suits under Section 13-A(1) in the same manner, as is provided for, in the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) -- Hence, the Collector also does have all such incidental powers to decide the suit effectively and also has the powers to grant injunction.

(Para 11)

D. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint – Power of – Nature of – Stage of -- Trial Court erred in observing that since the evidence had commenced, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC was not maintainable -- Powers of the Court conferred under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC are mandatory in nature and can be exercised at any stage of the suit, but before the conclusion of the trial.

(Para 13)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Mutation entry – Pendency of application – Writ against -- Petitioner moved application for entering a mutation  in revenue record, which application was duly received by the respondents vide File No.824 dated 25.10.2018 but the prayer in this application is not being processed -- Writ petition disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to decide the application within a period of eight weeks.

(Para 1, 6)

A. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g) (6) (For Haryana) – East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 14, 18, 20, 23-A, 24 – East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949, Rules 5, 7, 16(ii) -- Shamilat deh – Conclusion “(i) sub-section (6) of Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and the explanation appended thereto, is only an elucidation of the existing provisions of the said Act read with provisions contained in the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948;” and Conclusion “(ii) the un-amended provisions of the Act of 1961 and, in particular, Section 2(g)(1) read with Sections 18 and 23-A of the Act of 1948 and Rule 16(ii) of the Rules of 1949 cover all such lands which have been specifically earmarked in a consolidation scheme prepared under Section 14 read with Rules 5 and 7 and confirmed under Section 20, which has been implemented under the provisions of Section 24 and no other lands;” arrived at by the Full Bench in Jai Singh II (Jai Singh’s case 2003 SCC Online P&H 409) affirmed though for different reasons.

(Para 31, 67)

B. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g) (6) (For Haryana) -- East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 14 -- East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949, Rules 5, 7 -- Land contributed by proprietor on pro-rata cut -- Land not earmarked for any common purpose – Ownership Column-Jumla Mustarka Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Hasab Rasad Arazi Khewat – Possession Column-Proprietors – Vesting of – Conclusion “(iii) the lands which have been contributed by the proprietors on the basis of pro-rata cut on their holdings imposed during the consolidation proceedings and which have not been earmarked for any common purpose in the consolidation scheme prepared under Section 14 read with Rules 5 and 7 and entered in the column of ownership as Jumla Mustarka Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Hasab Rasad Arazi Khewat and in the column of possession with the proprietors, shall not vest with the Gram Panchayat or the State Government, as the case may be, on the dint of sub-section (6) of Section 2(g) and the explanation appended thereto or any other provisions of the Act of 1961 or the Act of 1948;” arrived at by the Full Bench in Jai Singh II (Jai Singh’s case 2003 SCC Online P&H 409) set aside.

(Para 31)

C. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g) (6) (For Haryana) – East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 2(bb), 18,  23-A – Shamilat deh -- Land reserved for common purposes – Non-utilisation of – Vesting of -- Redistribution to Proprietor – Right of --  Land reserved for common purposes cannot be re-partitioned amongst the proprietors only because at a particular given time, the land so reserved has not been put to common use -- Since ‘common purpose’ is a dynamic expression, as it keeps changing due to the change in requirement of the society and the passing times, therefore once the land has been reserved for common purposes, it cannot be reverted to the proprietors for redistribution.

(Para 84)

D. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g) (6) (For Haryana) – East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 2(bb), 18, 23-A – East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949, Rules 5, 7, 16(ii) – Ownership Column-Jumla Mustarka Malkans Wa Digar Haqdaran Hasab Rasad Arazi Khewat – Land reserved for common purposes – Utilised or not -- Vesting of – Conclusion “(iv) all such lands, which have been, as per the consolidations scheme, reserved for common purposes, whether utilised or not, shall vest with the State Government or the Gram Panchayat, as the case may be, even though in the column of ownership the entries may be Jumla Mustarka Malkans Wa Digar Haqdaran Hasab Rasad Arazi Khewat etc.” arrived at by the Full Bench in Jai Singh II (Jai Singh’s case 2003 SCC Online P&H 409) affirmed as there is no challenge to Conclusion No. (iv).

(Para 31, 67)

E. East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 2(bb), 23-A – East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949, Rule 16(ii) -- Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 4 -- Jumla Mushtarka Malkan land -- Finding in para 218 (k) in Suraj Bhan’ case, MANU/PH/3354/2016 = 2017 (2) Punjab Law Reporter 605 “(k) Any observation in Jai Singh’s case (supra) and Veer Singh’s case (supra) to the extent it is taken as conferring a right, title and ownership in respect of ‘Jumla Mushtarka Malkan’ lands on the Gram Panchayat would be improper and invalid notwithstanding Section 4 of the VCL Act 1961 in view of Section 2 (bb) and Section 23A of the Consolidation Act 1948; besides, Rule 16(ii) of the Consolidation Rules 1949 and the judgment of the Five Judge Bench of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Ajit Singh’s case (supra).”, set aside.

(Para 32, 67)

F. East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 14, 18, 23-A – East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949, Rules 5, 7, 16(ii) – Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g) – Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 7(4) – Gram Panchayat area -- Vesting of land reserved for common purposes -- Extension of municipal limit – Effect of -- Section 7(4) of the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 is to be read with the provisions of the 1973 Municipal Act -- The 1973 Municipal Act contemplates that even if part of the property of Gram Panchayat is included in the Municipal Limits, it would vest with the municipality -- Thus, the word ‘whole’ appearing in Section 7(4) of Panchayati Raj Act does include part of the Gram Panchayat area coming within the municipal limits -- Thus, if the whole or part of Gram Panchayat area is included in the municipal limits, the land reserved for common purposes as part of agrarian reforms would stand vested with the municipality -- The common purposes of the village community prior to extension of the municipal limits would be deemed to be common purposes for which land can be utilized by the municipality -- Such vesting of land reserved for common purposes is not an acquisition for the first time but transition of the land.

(Para 103, 104)

G. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Sections 2(g), 7, 13A (Haryana) -- Haryana Common Purposes Land Eviction and Rent Recovery Act, 1985 (15 of 1985), Section 2 -- East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Sections 2(bb), 14, 18, 23-A -- Shamilat deh – Land reserved for Common purposes – Eviction of unauthorised occupant – Title dispute -- Remedy of -- Scope of the two provisions under the 1985 Act and 1961 Act are different and distinct -- Under the 1985 Act, the Gram  Panchayat could seek eviction from unauthorized occupants, the management and control as of the land reserved for common purposes whereof vested in the Gram Panchayat in a summary way where the possession of the occupant was unauthorized -- But if there is dispute in respect of the nature of occupation by the occupant or by the panchayat, procedure under the 1961 Act alone can be resorted to as Section 13A of the 1961 Act confers power upon the Collector to decide the question of right, title or interest in any land or immoveable property vested or deemed to have been vested in the panchayat – In case of a dispute about the right, title or interest in any land for or on behalf of any person, the remedy under the 1961 Act alone can be exercised -- This will include right, title or interest in all the three categories of land i.e., shamilat deh owned by panchayat, shamilat land vested in terms of 1948 Act falling in second category and the land, the management and control whereof is vested with the panchayat, land being within the permissible limits of the proprietor, the management and control of which vest with the panchayat.

(Para 107)

H. Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g)(6) (As amended by Haryana Act 9 of 1992) – Shamilat deh -- Impugned provisions of the Amending Act:

“2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires

xxx                            xxx                        xxx

(g)              shamilat deh" includes

xxx                            xxx                        xxx

(6) lands reserved for the common purposes of a village under Section 18 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (East Punjab Act 50 of 1948), the management and control whereof vest in the Gram Panchayat under Section 23-A of the aforesaid Act.

Explanation- Lands entered in the column of ownership of record of rights as ‘Jumla Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Arazi Hassab Rasad, ‘Jumla Malkan’ or ‘Mushtarka Malkan’ shall be Shamilat Deh within the meaning of this Section.”

Held, Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992, the Amending Act is valid and does not suffer from any vice of constitutional infirmity -- Entire land reserved for common purposes by applying pro-rata cut had to be utilized by the Gram Panchayat for the present and future needs of the village community and that no part of the land can be re-partitioned amongst the proprietors.

(Para 5, 108)

I. Meaning of revenue terms:

Abadi -- Land which is the site of a house, homestead or building.

Abadi Deh -- Land reserved for houses of the village community. Lies within the Laldora (red line). Is normally assigned one Khewat and one Khasra no. No land revenue is charged.

Bachat land -- Land left out which was carved out by imposing a cut on proprietors which was reserved for common purposes during Consolidation.

Types of land

(a) Banjar Jadid -- Old Fallow that has remained uncultivated for four Harvests but may still be brought to cultivation

(b) Banjar Qadim -- Old Fallow that has remained uncultivated for eight Harvests but may still be brought to cultivation.

(c) Gair Mumkin Land -- Land that is no longer capable of being used for cultivation as it is the site of a house, building, road, canal, river etc.

(d) Nehri land -- Land that is irrigated by a canal

(e) Barani -- Rain fed

(f) Chahi -- Irrigated by wells or Tubewells

(g) Aabi -- Irrigated by means other than canal or Well

Deh -- Land

Fard -- Document prepared by the revenue Official

Documents that form part of the Records of Rights U/s 31 of the Punjab Land Records Act, 1887

(a) Jamabandi -- Records names of land owners, tenants or assignees of land revenue in the estate or who are entitled to receive rents, profits or produce of the estate or to occupy land therein.

(b) Wajib-ul-arz Or Sharat Wajib-ul-arz -- The statement of custom respecting rights and liabilities in the estate and also contains the rights of proprietors and non-proprietors in the common land of the village. It is also called the village administration paper.

(c) Shajra kishtwar -- A Map of the estate (shajra kishtawar (map of the village) is prepared on a strong cloth called a Latha A copy of the Map is called the Aksh Shajra).

Hasab Rasad Zare Khewat -- Share of a proprietor in common land. According to the revenue assessed on his proprietary holding.

Jumla Mushtarka Malkan -- Land carved out for common purpose from the holding of the proprietors, the control and management of which vests with Panchayat.

Jumla Mushtarka Malkan Wa digar Haqdaran Arazi Hasab Rasad Raqba -- Joint holding of the proprietary body and other right holders as per share in the land contributed during consolidation on a pro rata basis. The management and control of such land vests in the Panchayats.

Khewat Number -- Is the number assigned to an owner of his land holding. Only a landowner will be assigned a khewat number.

Khewatdar -- The holder of Land/share in a village.

Khatauni -- Records the name of person in Possession

Mal Guzars -- The person who pays the revenue assessed on an estate

Malikan Deh -- Proprietary body of the village.

Malikan Makbuza Khurd -- Owner in self cultivation

Mushtarka Malkan -- Joint ownership of all the proprietors

Phirni -- Pathway around the village habitation i.e. the village path around the Abadi Deh

Shamilat -- Common purposes

Shamilat Deh -- Lands Reserved and used for common purposes.

Tarrafs, Pattis, Pannas and Tholas -- The village was divided into different Pattis/sections based upon caste, religion, occupation, etc. of the persons residing in the village. Patti is described as division of land into separate portions or strips in a village. Patti is basically, therefore, a small division of the village. The terms ‘Taraf’, ‘panna’ and ‘Thola’ may be different but are akin to Patti and also deal with community of villagers residing separately.

Marla -- 30.25 sq. yards

Kanal -- 20 marlas = 605 sq. yards

Acre -- 160 marlas = 4840 sq. yards

Biswani Pukhta -- 7.5625 sq. yards

Biswani Kachcha -- 2.521 sq. yards

Biswa Pukhta -- 151.25 sq. yards

Biswa Kachcha -- 50.42 sq. yards

Bigha Pukhta -- 3025 sq. yards

Bigha Kachcha -- 1008.33 sq. yards

Acre Pukhta -- 5 Bighas 12 Biswa

Acre Kachcha -- 4 Bigha 75 Biswa

Hadbast -- Boundary of a village or revenue estate. Each village or revenue estate is assigned a separate Hadbast number.

Rectangle/Mushtatil -- The land is divided into different rectangles/ Mushtatils. The rectangle is represented by (//) in the revenue record. Each Mushtatil contains 25 Khasra Numbers with Khasra No. 13 being in the center. The holding of the land owner is represented by the rectangle/ Mushtatil number, followed by the Khasra number and the area of each khasra number.

Khasra number -- Khasra number is given to a specific piece of land in the village. One or more Khasra form a khatauni, one or more Khatauni form a Khewat. The Khasra numbers in a khatauni may or may not be mentioned sequentially.

(GLOSSARY OF THE WORDS USED IN THE JUDGMENT)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7(2), 13AA(2) (Haryana) – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Eviction proceedings – Revision for title dispute pending – Effect of -- Contends that in case the proceedings u/s 7(2) of the Act which have been preferred by the private respondents is finalised prior to the decision in the revision petition, the petitioner is likely to loose the possession of the land in question without there being any decision on the title – Direction issued to the F.C. Revenue to consider and decide the said revision petitions on the next date of hearing and in case it is not possible to do so on the said date, it may be done within a further period of one week thereafter.

(Para 1-5)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Age of candidate – Relevance of -- Appointed candidate is 65 years old and petitioner is 43 years old -- Appeal and revision against appointment dismissed – Held, it is settled law that the choice of the Collector has to be preferred unless and until the same is shown to be perverse -- Respondent No.6 being appointed, even though, 65 years of age and older to the petitioner, cannot be termed to be a perversity – Writ Court does not sit in appeal over orders passed by the authorities below and does not re-appraise the respective merits of the parties -- Thus, the impugned orders do not call for any interference -- Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 2-4)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Husband of petitioner was Lambardar – Non-consideration of -- It is settled law that the choice of the Collector must be respected unless and until the same is found to be perverse -- Just because the husband of the petitioner was a Lambardar, it cannot be presumed that she has better knowledge of lambardari duties -- In exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the concerned Court is only required to go into patent procedural illegalities or perversities -- It is not essential for the Court to consider each and every argument raised because appellate jurisdiction is not being exercised – No ground to interfere with the order passed by the Financial Commissioner -- Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 3-5)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 34 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Mutation entry – Pendency of application – Writ against -- Petitioner purchased land but his name has been omitted from the mutation -- Representation has been submitted before respondent No. 3 but no action has been taken thereupon till date – Writ petition disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 3 to decide the pending representation in accordance with law by passing a speaking order within eight weeks -- If it is found that name of the petitioner has erroneously not been included in the mutation the same be done within four weeks thereafter.

(Para 1, 5)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Mutation entry – Refusal to – Remedy of -- Order refusing to enter mutation passed by the Deputy Commissioner -- Same can always be challenged u/s 16 of the 1887, Act – Writ dismissed with liberty to avail the alternative remedy.

(Para 1-3)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7(2), 13AA (2) (Haryana) – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Eviction proceeding -- Question of title pending in revision – Writ jurisdiction -- Contention that in case the proceedings u/s 7(2) of the Act is finalised prior to the decision in the revision petition, the petitioners are likely to loose the possession of the land in question without there being any decision on the title -- Direction issued to the F.C, Revenue, to consider and decide the said revision petitions on the next date of hearing, and in case it is not possible to do so on the said date, it may be done within a further period of one week thereafter.

(Para 1-5)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7, 11 (Haryana) – Eviction proceedings – Question of title – Nature of – Contention that the proceedings could not have been taken further by the A.C., 1st Grade in the light of the reply raising question of title – Held, opinion of A.C., 1st Grade, has to be based upon the documents placed on record raising the question of title and the doubt with regard thereto -- In the absence of any document appended along with the reply to the petition u/s 7 of the 1961 Act, the plea cannot be accepted.

(Para 2-6)

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (9 of 1994), Section 13 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Election of Panch -- Wrong declaration of result – Writ Jurisdiction -- After declaring the result, Presiding/Returning Officer, while preparing the list, i.e. Form No.9 and Annexure-IX, inadvertently by mistake, sent incorrect result to the higher authorities for issuance of notification and respondent no. 6 was declared elected -- Petition allowed, notification set aside and a direction given to Punjab State Election Commission to carry out the correction in the notification and fresh notification with respect to the result of the petitioner be issued.

(Para 3)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Suit for recovery of mortgage money dismissed – Tehsildar entered rapat cancelling mortgage – Challenge to – Writ jurisdiction -- Impugned order passed by a revenue official and the same is appealable under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 -- Since there is an equally efficacious remedy available to the petitioner, Court refrained from exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(Para 3)

Revenue matter – ROR dismissed in default – Second application for restoration – Maintainability of -- Restoration application also dismissed for non-prosecution -- Thereafter, a second application was filed and the same has been dismissed on the ground of maintainability – No error in the said order -- Petitioners should have challenged the said order by way of writ petition instead of filing a second application for restoration.

(Para 1-4)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Appointment of chowkidar – Writ jurisdiction -- Maintainability of appeal – Even though, the Chowkidara Rules do not provide for an appeal, an appeal can still be filed u/s 13 of the Act as the Collector, who has passed the impugned order is a revenue official too – Writ petition is not maintainable.

(Para 1,4,5)