We are called upon to answer the following reference:

"Notice of motion.

On being asked, Mr. Jaswinder Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, has accepted notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the caveator has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No.4.

Undisputedly, respondent No.4 herein had filed CWP No.14419 of 2011 [2] **** a suit for declaration and joint possession pertaining to the property in dispute. Undisputedly, Civil Court has issued ad interim injunction to the effect that parties shall maintain status quo and no third party interest shall be created during the pendency of the suit. Undisputedly, during the pendency of the suit respondent No.4, who happens to be the close relative of the Reader of the Assistant Collector, moved an application for correction of khasra girdawri. Undisputedly, during the pendency of the civil suit, learned Assistant Collector after alleged spot inspection has directed correction in the khasra girdawri recording possession of respondent No.4.

The sole question arises before this Court is As to whether during the pendency of the regular civil suit, involving question of title and possession, revenue authorities have any jurisdiction to conduct spot inspection to change the entries in the khasra girdawri enabling one of the litigants of the civil suit to create defence or plea in his favour?

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in three cases i.e. Lachhman Singh & CWP No.14419 of 2011 [3] **** ors. Vs. Rachna, 1991 PLJ 66, Samma Singh Vs. Kapur Singh and others, 1997(2) PLR 791 and Sulakhan Singh Vs. Prema, 2002(1) PLR 335 and has argued that during the pendency of the civil suit correction should not be permitted to be carried out by the revenue authorities in the khasra girdawri.

In the opinion of this Court, judgment of the Civil Court pertaining to the title and possession shall have binding effect over the revenue authorities and revenue authorities should not carry out correction in the khasra girdawri about the possession of either of the party before the Civil Court otherwise it would amount to permitting the revenue authorities to sit over the Civil Court's finding. Even otherwise ultimately Civil Court judgment shall prevail and entries are to be made as per the judgment of the Civil Court, therefore, entire exercise of the revenue authorities to correct the khasra girdawri would be in futile.

Learned counsel for respondent No.4 has placed reliance on the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Shri Niranjan Singh and others Vs. The Financial Commissioner, CWP No.14419 of 2011 [4] **** Punjab (Revenue) and others, 1979 PLJ 352 and has argued that learned Single Judge has held that correction can be carried out by the revenue authorities during the pendency of the civil suit and ultimately finding of the Civil Court shall prevail and again correction can be made as per finding of the Civil Court.

With respect, I do not agree with the observations recorded by learned Single Judge in the case of Shri Niranjan Singh (supra) for the reason if ultimately entries are to be made in accordance with the Civil Court judgment, therefore, it seems unnecessary permitting the revenue authorities to carry out amendment during the pendency of the civil suit.

In the opinion of this Court and in view of the conflicting views, matter requires consideration by the Larger Bench.

Let this matter be placed before Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice to refer to the Larger Bench to decide as to whether revenue authorities are competent to carry out correction in the khasra girdawri in favour of one of the litigants, who is CWP No.14419 of 2011 [5] **** party in a pending civil suit involving question of title and possession during the pendency of civil suit?

Meanwhile, parties shall maintain status quo. However, this interim order shall not preclude the Civil Court to proceed with the suit without being prejudiced from the status quo order."

Before, we embark upon an appraisal of the question posed, it would be appropriate to refer to the facts of this case. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 6.12.2010 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade (SDM), Patiala and order dated 17.5.2011 (Annexure P-6), passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala, by which an application filed by respondent No.4 (Sumana Devi) for correction of khasra Girdawari, has been allowed.

The property in dispute was owned by Jagir Chand, who had the following family members:

Jagir Chand died on 02.08.2007 |

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The dispute is between Suhagwanti (petitioner) widow of Jagir Chand and Sumana Devi (respondent No.4), her daughter-in-law, widow of her pre-deceased son Dharampal. It is alleged that after the death of Jagir Chand on 2.8.2007, it was mutually decided to divide his property and to give a share to respondent No.4 also, but she being a Reader in the Court of Tehsildar, filed a civil suit along with her daughter Manisha and son Ritesh, against the petitioner and all other legal heirs of Jagir Chand, seeking declaration to the effect that she is owner in joint possession of 1/6th share of the land involved in the suit and prayed for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants in the suit from alienating it, in any manner, and also from dispossessing them during the pendency of the suit. It is further alleged that the following order was recorded by Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Patiala on 29.10.2009:

"The parties are agreed also that status quo regarding possession and status quo regarding alienation of the suit property be maintained till the disposal of the suit."

It is further submitted that after the aforesaid interim order, respondent No.4 filed an application on 13.10.2010 in the Court of Assistant Collector, IInd Grade (Naib Tehsildar), Patiala, that she had sown paddy in khasra Nos.1308(6-0), 1309(6-0), 1310 (0-5) & 1311 CWP No.14419 of 2011 [7] **** (0-5), in village Ranbirpura, which of course is a part of the land involved in the aforesaid suit and prayed for correction of khasra girdawari. The said application has been allowed on 6.12.2010 by the impugned order Annexure P-4 and its appeal and revision filed by the petitioner before the Collector and the Commissioner were dismissed vide impugned orders dated 21.2.2011 (Annexure P-5) and 17.5.2011 (Annexure P-6), respectively.

Aggrieved against the aforesaid orders, the present writ petition has been filed, in which, while issuing notice of motion, the order dated 12.8.2012 has been passed by the learned Single Judge, while making a reference of the following question to the Larger Bench to decide:

"Whether revenue authorities are competent to carry out correction in the khasra girdawari in favour of one of the litigants, who is party in a pending civil suit involving question of title and possession during the pendency of civil suit?

In order to answer the question, it would be relevant to understand the meaning of khasra girdawari. The term "khasra" relates to the number of plot/land in the revenue record, whereas girdawari has been defined in Chapter IX para 349 of the Punjab Land Administration Manual [for short "Administration Manual"] as "inspection of the crop of each harvest field by field before they are CWP No.14419 of 2011 [8] **** cut". In another words, girdawari is a report of harvest inspection. The object of harvest inspection/girdawari as per para 350 of Chapter IX of the Administration Manual is to collect accurate information regarding (a) crops, (b) changes in rights, rents and possession of land, and (c) amendments required in the village map. The first is indispensable for assessment and collection of land revenue in a province where half of the land is cultivated by the owners and the greater part of the remaining half by tenants paying rent in kind. The second and third are aids for the maintenance of a correct records of rights, in the soil. The date, on which the inspection of the harvest begins, is provided in Chapter 9.1 of the Punjab Land Records Manual [for short "Records Manual"], according to which crop of Kharif is inspected on 1st October and crop of Rabi on 1st March, if it is not otherwise fixed by the Commissioner of each district in special circumstances. As per Chapter 9.8 of the Records Manual, the crops are required to be entered in khasra girdawari as the inspection proceeds. In the column provided for the purposes and changes in rights, rents and possession is noted in the appropriate column and where boundaries or area of a field have changed in such a manner as to require a correction of the field map, the Patwari makes a rough measurement, sufficient for the crop entries. In Chapter 9.9 of the Records Manual, procedure is provided for making corrections of errors arising in khasra girdawari registers.

The preparation of khasra girdawari is not an empty formality, but it is the requirement of law for better administration of land revenue collection and prima facie evidence of possession; relevant in case of failure of crop (Kharaba) or if it remains fallow (Khali) is also recorded entitling the peasant/farmers to seek help of the government for some damages in case it happens due to natural calamity. However, entry in the khasra girdawari is a mere fiscal entry recorded to update the revenue record.

Before we proceed further, we would like to first deal with the Single Bench judgments, relied upon by both the parties. In the case of Lachhman Singh and others v. Rachna, 1991 PLJ 66, plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession over the agricultural land. The basic issue was as to whether the plaintiff was owner in possession of the suit land. The Trial Court partly decided issue no.1 holding that the plaintiff was in possession but as a trespasser, whereas the Appellate Court reversed the finding on issue no.1 and held that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit land. Thus, the defendants filed the Second Appeal in which it was argued that since the Assistant Collector had corrected khasra girdawari after the decree of the Appellate Court, therefore, they were found to be in possession and as such, the plaintiff was not entitled to declaration of ownership and cannot be declared to be in possession. It was held by this Court that the defendants had CWP No.14419 of 2011 [ 10 ] **** filed application for correction of khasra girdawari of Rabi crop in the year 1978, whereas the plaintiff has been found to be in possession for long time spanning over several decades. It was held that no interference in Second Appeal can be ordered merely because of the correction of the name of defendants in khasra girdawari of Rabi 1978.

In the case of Samma Singh v. Kapur Singh and others, 1997(2) PLR 791, the Regular Second Appeal was filed by the defendants. The plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction with regard to their possession over agricultural land as per jamabandi for the year 1978-79 alleging themselves to be owner in possession of the suit land having been purchased from Tehsildar (Sales), whereas case of the defendant was that he is in possession of the suit land for the last more than 20 years which is clearly proved from the report of the Naib Tehsildar, Nakodar and now the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the suit by their own act and conduct. In this case also, the dispute was with regard to correction of khasra girdawari but it was held that

once the disputes have arisen between the parties, regarding the correctness of Khasra Girdawari entries, the controversy cannot be allowed to be transferred for decision to the Revenue Authorities. If any orders for the correction of the entries in the Khasra Girdawaris have been made by these authorities, those would be irrelevant in the civil proceedings and only the evidence adduced by the parties in connection with the truthfulness or falsity of the Khasra Girsdawari entries shall have to CWP No.14419 of 2011 [ 11 ] **** be assessed independently by the Civil Court

.

In the case of Sulakhan Singh v. Prema, 2002(1) PLR 335, plaintiff was in Regular Second Appeal who filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging that he is the owner in possession of agricultural land. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant has asserted that he had obtained Nishandehi from the revenue authorities and got the name of the plaintiff removed from the column of ownership in the jamabandi for the year 1988-89 who have threatened to take possession forcefully. It was found by this Court that the plaintiff was owner in possession as a co-sharer who was granted interim injunction by the Trial Court and the revenue authorities had no jurisdiction to change the khasra girdawari.

On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has referred the judgment in the case of Niranjan Singh and others v. The Financial Commissioner, Punjab (Revenue) and others, 1979 PLJ

352. The prayer in the petition was to quash the order of the revenue authorities effecting change in khasra girdawari showing the contesting respondents as tenants because the Civil Court was seized of the same matter. It was argued by the petitioners' counsel that the dispute was only as to whether the respondents were trespassers or tenants which was subjudice before the Civil Court. The Trial Court found the respondent as trespassers against which an appeal was pending. In the meantime, an order was obtained by the respondent in that case from CWP No.14419 of 2011 [ 12 ] **** the revenue authorities with regard to change in khasra girdawari from 1962 to 1965. The respondents were shown tenants by change in the entry in girdawari. This change was challenged by the petitioners in CWP No.51 of 1968. This Court had held that

the Commissioner in his impugned order dated July 25, 1967, said that it was within the exclusive jurisdiction of a revenue officer to correct the Khasra Girdawari and it is upto the civil Court to interpret it in any particular civil proceeding pending before it either singly or in the context of other relevant evidence brought on record by the parties. The learned counsel for the parties do not (and rightly) dispute the correctness of the observation made by the Commissioner. The revenue authorities shall continue to be competent to effect change in the entries in the Girdawaris irrespective of the fact that the civil Court is seized of the same matter, though the finding of the civil Court regarding the status of the contesting respondents including respondent No.3 being a tenant or otherwise will over-ride the finding of the revenue authorities resulting in the change of entries in the Girdawaris.

Reverting to the question posed, as per facts of this case, the Civil Court passed the order of injunction on 29.01.2009 directing parties to maintain status quo regarding possession and alienation of the suit land till the disposal of the suit but permission was granted to the parties to alienate their own share and not beyond that. The application for correction of khasra girdawari, as per Annexure P-4, CWP No.14419 of 2011 [ 13 ] **** was filed on 18.11.2010. The Assistant Collector 2nd Grade (Naib Tehsildar), Patiala, visited the spot on 01.12.2010 and found respondent no.4 in possession and accordingly ordered for correction in the khasra girdawari for that crop. Similarly, in appeal, the Collector, Sub Division, Patiala visited the spot on 18.02.2011, found respondent no.4 in possession and upheld the order of correction. The revision filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala was also dismissed on 07.05.2011 in which it was observed that both the authorities below had physically verified possession of respondent no.4 and ordered for change in the entry of khasra girdawari of that crop and as there was no stay by the Civil Court with regard to proceedings for correction of khasra girdawari, they were within their jurisdiction to act accordingly.

While making the reference, learned Single Judge has expressed his reservations regarding observations in Niranjan Singh and others' case (supra) on the ground that if ultimately entries are to be made in khasra girdawari according to the Civil Court judgment, then the act of the revenue authorities carrying out amendments in the khasra girdawari as per crop inspection at the time of harvest would be a futile exercise.

We would answer the question posed by the learned Single Judge first of all reiterating that rights of the parties in a suit, before a Civil Court, whether with regard to ownership or possession are CWP No.14419 of 2011 [ 14 ] **** crystalized on the date of filing of the suit and are determined, as they existed on the date of commencement of the lis. In case a party looses its title over the property in dispute during pendency of the suit, a Civil Court would not be competent to grant a declaration of ownership. In case a defendant produces documentary evidence to prove change of possession and denies the possession of the plaintiff, though the Civil Court may have directed parties to maintain status quo with regard to possession, the corrected khasra girdawari would not be of any help to the defendant until and unless it is proved by independent evidence that possession of the said property was itself relinquished by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant and the crop was sown by the defendant which had been so recorded by the Halqa Patwari at the time of harvest inspection or preparation of khasra girdawari.

As we have already noticed, the object of harvest inspection/girdawari is to collect accurate information regarding crops, change in rights, rent and possession of land, amendments required in the village map, the data with regard to crops for the purpose of overall planning. One must understand that basis or nature of a revenue entry, namely, it neither confers nor divest a party of its title whether proprietary or possessory and is a mere fiscal entry recorded to update the revenue record. It, therefore, cannot be held that a khasra girdawari cannot be recorded or corrected during pendency of a suit.

Thus, the question posed is hereby answered by holding CWP No.14419 of 2011 [ 15 ] **** that a revenue authority has jurisdiction to conduct spot inspection with regard to change of entries in the khasra girdawari even if a suit involving a question of title and/or possession is pending, but such an entry is not binding upon a Civil Court and any change of possession has to be proved by independent material that may be placed before the Court.

With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is disposed of.