CM-25624 COCP-2660 IN THE HI 101+219 Gunjeet Sing Anurag Verm CORAM: H Present: - NIDHI GUP CM-25624 placing on r for placing o true translate 24-CII-2025 2660-2025 (O&M) -1- E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H CM- COCP Date o et Singh and others Versus g Verma and others M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Advoca Ms. Priyanka Kansal and Mr. V for the petitioners. Mr. Saurav Verma, Addl. A.G., Mr. Manmeet Singh Teji, AAG, Ms. Swapandeep Kaur, Tehsilda Mr. Manish Kumar Singla, Adv for applicant (in CM-11255-CII I GUPTA, J. (ORAL) 5624-CII-2025 Prayer in this application filed g on record replication to the reply fi cing on record true translated copy of Heard. Application is allowed, as praye Replication to the reply filed by anslated copy of Jamabandi for the y ND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -25624-CII-2025 in/and COCP-2660-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.01.2026 .… Petitioners .... Respondents NIDHI GUPTA dvocate with Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocates . A.G., Punjab with AAG, Punjab assisted by ehsildar, Patran, Patiala. a, Advocate CII-2025). filed under Section 151 CPC is for eply filed by respondent No. 2 and py of Annexure P-11. s prayed for. iled by respondent No. 2 as well as r the year 2019-2020 (Annexure P- s for and ll as RISHU KATARIA 2026.01.14 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CM-25624 COCP-2660 11) filed alo exceptions. COCP-2660 1. learned coun 2. of Rachhpal legal heirs o said Civil Su Court vide Court vide the judgme 25.03.1992 judgment da the responde the petitione 3. implementat allowed vide revenue auth ownership w Executing F (Annexure judgment da 24-CII-2025 2660-2025 (O&M) -2- ed along with the application are taken tions. 2660-2025 (O&M) Synopsis along with compend d counsel for the State in Court is take Brief facts of the case are that hhpal Kaur daughter of Bhagwant S heirs of Bhagwant Singh had filed C ivil Suit was partly decreed in favour vide judgment and decree dated 07. vide judgment dated 15.12.1986 (An dgment dated 07.11.1983. This 1992 (AnnexureP-4); and the Ho ent dated 06.04.1993 had dismissed th spondent-State of Punjab thereby upho titioners. The petitioners thereafter appro entation of Decree in their favour d vide judgment dated 08.08.2014 e authorities to enter the name of the ship within a period of 2 months. The ting First Appellate Court vide xureP-5). The same has also been ent dated 21.02.2024 (AnnexureP e taken on record, subject to all just mpendium of judgments filed by is taken on record. e that the petitioners are legal heirs Singh. The petitioners and other iled Civil Suit for declaration. The avour of the petitioners by the Trial ed 07.11.1983. The First Appellate AnnexureP-3) had also upheld Court vide judgment dated Hon'ble Supreme Court vide issed the respective appeals filed by upholding the decree in favour of approached the Executing Court for favour; and the same was partly 014 (Annexure P-1) directing the of the petitioners in the column of s. The same has been upheld by the vide judgment dated 19.04.2017 been upheld by this Court vide P-2) passed in Civil Revision just by eirs ther rial llate held vide d by r of t for artly the n of the vide RISHU KATARIA 2026.01.14 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CM-25624 COCP-2660 No. 4060-20 was directed 4. such clear an complying w have passed orders passed 5. behalf of the been duly (Annexure P 6. of the respo categorically mention tha objection pe subsequent p are only enti record corre the Trial Co 24-CII-2025 2660-2025 (O&M) -3- 2017 and other connected matte irected as under:- “17. Despite the repetition, it that all the observations made the objection petitions filed b binding in the subsequent proce issues. The decree holders are in the ownership column of the their favour as per the judgme Trial Court.” Ld. Senior Counsel for the petit and binding directions, the State ying with the judgment passed in the assed; thereby committing willful di passed by the Hon'ble Courts. Ld. Counsel for the respondent of the petitioners and submits that n duly incorporated in the Jamaban xure P-11), as owners of the suit prope Ld. Senior Counsel for the petit respondents and submits that this rically directed that ‘despite the repe that all the observations made by n petitions filed by the objectors ent proceedings except for the releva entitled to get the entries in the own orrected in their favour as per the ju l Court’. However, the respondents a matters whereby in para No. 17 it n, it necessitates explicit mention ade by the Court while deciding ed by the objectors shall not be roceedings except for the relevant are only entitled to get the entries f the revenue record corrected in dgment and decree passed by the e petitioners submits that even after State authorities are deliberately not in the year 1983 although 40 years lful disobedience of the decree and ondents controverts submissions on that names of the petitioners have mabandi for the year 2019-2020 t property. e petitioners rebuts the submissions this Court in Civil Revision had repetition, it necessitates explicit by the Court while deciding the tors shall not be binding in the elevant issues. The decree holders ownership column of the revenue he judgment and decree passed by dents are espousing the cause of the it on ng be nt ies in he after not ears and s on 020 ions had cit he he rs ue by f the RISHU KATARIA 2026.01.14 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CM-25624 COCP-2660 objectors, an 18-B of the (Annexure P 7. surplus, the the Land Ce be necessaril this reasons objectors sha 24-CII-2025 2660-2025 (O&M) -4- ors, and have incorrectly recorded in th of the true translated copy of Jamab xure P-11 with CM-25624-CII-2025), “Vide Rapat no.: 97, Court ord 4060 of 2017, in which the H High Court, Chandigarh, pass 21.02.2024; The rights of the objectors rem are not a party to the Judg presently the subject of implem the decree holders are entitled declaration that the entry in th the State Government shall representatives of Late. Sh. reflected as the owners in the revenue record and the aforesa to any further order passed by the 1953 Act read with the 1973 xxx xxx 2.) CWP No.5690 of 2018 Smt. Ravinder Pal Kal E Commissioner Punjab Present a Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for Notice of motion for 06.07.2018 To be heard along with CWP N the parties are directed to ma today regarding alienation However, operation of impug (Annexure P-1 and P-1A) shall Ld. State Counsel clarifies th the surplus land had been resumed b nd Ceiling Act and further sold to the essarily reflected in the said Jamaband asons that it is mentioned in Rapat ors shall remain unaffected. in the Rapat Entry No. 97 at page Jamabandi for the year 2019-2020 025), as follows:- t order dated 14.11.2024, Revision he Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana passed the following order dated remain unaffected because they Judgment and decree which is plementation. The only relief that titled to is the grant of decree of in the revenue record in favour of all be corrected and the legal Sh. Bhagwant Singh shall be the column of ownership in the resaid declaration shall be subject by the competent authority under 1973 Act. xxx xxx l End another vs Financial ent and others te for the petitioners 2018 P No. 3278 of 2018. Meanwhile, maintain status quo, as it exists of the property in dispute. pugned order dated 04.12.2017 hall remain stayed.” (Emphasis added) fies that as the suit property was umed by the respondent-State under to the objectors, whose rights are to abandi. It is submitted that it is for apat No. 97 that the rights of the age 020 on na ed ey is at of of al be he ect er ial , sts 17 was nder to s for the RISHU KATARIA 2026.01.14 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CM-25624 COCP-2660 8. rights of the proceedings Ravinder Pa others’. It (Annexure is according necessary co the true tran P-11 with CM 9. length; wher Swapandeep undertakes th 97 at page N 2019-2020 the petitione from today. respondent Jamabandi titled as ‘Sm Punjab, and status quo the suit prop remain intac 24-CII-2025 2660-2025 (O&M) -5- Ld. Senior Counsel for the pe of the objectors are still to be decide dings are pending; including CWP der Pal Kaur and another vs. Financia . It is pointed out that the Jamaba xure P-11), duly reflects the said posi ordingly prayed that the decree be im ary correction be made in the Rapat E e translated copy of Jamabandi for th ith CM-25624-CII-2025). I have heard learned counsel f ; whereafter, learned counsel for the S ndeep Kaur, Tehsildar, Patran, Patia akes that necessary correction shall be page No. 18-B of the true translated co (Annexure P-11 with CM-25624 titioners as owners of the suit property today. It is further acknowledged dent-State that at page 18-F of the (Annexure P-11), it is duly men Smt. Ravinder Pal Kaur and anothe , and others’, is pending adjudicatio has been granted qua the suit prop it property has been stayed. It is dire intact as it is, till the decision of CWP the petitioners further clarifies that decided in respect of which several CWP-5690-2018, titled as ‘Smt. inancial Commissioner Punjab, and amabandi for the year 2019-2020 d position at Pg. 18-F of the CM. It be implemented at the earliest and apat Entry No. 97 at page 18-B of i for the year 2019-2020 (Annexure nsel for the parties at considerable r the State on instructions from Ms. , Patiala, who is present in Court hall be made in the Rapat Entry No. ated copy of Jamabandi for the year 25624-CII-2025), thereby reflecting roperty within a period of 08 weeks dged by learned counsel for the of the CM-25624-CII-2025 in the ly mentioned that CWP-5690-2018, another vs. Financial Commissioner dication before this Court wherein it property and further alienation of directed that the said entry shall f CWP-5690-2018. eral Smt. and 020 It and B of xure able Ms. ourt No. year ting eeks the the 018, oner rein of hall RISHU KATARIA 2026.01.14 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CM-25624 COCP-2660 10. view of the the instant p revive the pr 11. 12. undertaking required to b of, with liber 13. 14. 12.01.2026 rishu 24-CII-2025 2660-2025 (O&M) -6- Learned Senior Counsel for th f the aforesaid undertaking given by stant petition may be disposed of, wit the present contempt petition in case Ordered accordingly. In view of the facts noted aking on behalf of the respondent ed to be passed in the present petition, liberty to the petitioners as aforesaid Rule stands discharged. Pending application(s), if any, s 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable for the petitioners submits that in en by learned counsel for the State of, with liberty to the petitioners to case it is not complied with. noted above and in view of the ndent-State, no further orders are tition, and the same stands disposed resaid. any, shall also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE ned Yes/No Yes/No t in to the are sed RISHU KATARIA 2026.01.14 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.