01.2026 Date o Gunjeet Sing et Singh & Ors. v. Anurag Verm g Verma & Ors.

Judgment

1. Synopsis along with compend mpendium of judgments filed by learned coun d counsel for the State in Court is take is taken on record.

Brief facts of the case are that e that the petitioners are legal heirs of Rachhpal hhpal Kaur daughter of Bhagwant S Singh. The petitioners and other legal heirs o heirs of Bhagwant Singh had filed C iled Civil Suit for declaration. The said Civil Su ivil Suit was partly decreed in favour avour of the petitioners by the Trial Court vide vide judgment and decree dated 07. ed 07.11.1983. The First Appellate Court vide vide judgment dated 15.12.1986 (An AnnexureP-3) had also upheld the judgme dgment dated 07.11.1983. This Court vide judgment dated

25.03.1992 1992 (AnnexureP-4); and the Ho Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment da ent dated 06.04.1993 had dismissed th d by issed the respective appeals filed by the responde spondent-State of Punjab thereby upho r of upholding the decree in favour of the petitione titioners.

3. The petitioners thereafter appro t for approached the Executing Court for implementat entation of Decree in their favour favour; and the same was partly allowed vide d vide judgment dated 08.08.2014 014 (Annexure P-1) directing the revenue auth e authorities to enter the name of the n of of the petitioners in the column of ownership w ship within a period of 2 months. The s. The same has been upheld by the Executing F ting First Appellate Court vide vide judgment dated 19.04.2017 (Annexure xureP-5). The same has also been been upheld by this Court vide judgment da ent dated 21.02.2024 (AnnexureP P-2) passed in Civil Revision RISHU KATARIA 2026.01.14 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CM-25624 COCP-2660 24-CII-2025 2660-2025 (O&M) -3- No. 4060-20 2017 and other connected matte matters whereby in para No. 17 it was directed 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.” 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

4. Ld. Senior Counsel for the petit e petitioners submits that even after such clear an and binding directions, the State State authorities are deliberately not complying w ying with the judgment passed in the in the year 1983 although 40 years have passed assed; thereby committing willful di lful disobedience of the decree and orders passed passed by the Hon'ble Courts.

5. Ld. Counsel for the respondent s on ondents controverts submissions on behalf of the of the petitioners and submits that n that names of the petitioners have been duly duly incorporated in the Jamaban 020 mabandi for the year 2019-2020 (Annexure P xure P-11), as owners of the suit prope t property.

6. Ld. Senior Counsel for the petit e petitioners rebuts the submissions of the respo respondents and submits that this this Court in Civil Revision had categorically rically directed that ‘despite the repe repetition, it necessitates explicit mention tha that all the observations made by by the Court while deciding the objection pe n petitions filed by the objectors tors shall not be binding in the subsequent p ent proceedings except for the releva elevant issues. The decree holders are only enti entitled to get the entries in the own ownership column of the revenue record corre orrected in their favour as per the ju he judgment and decree passed by the Trial Co l Court’. However, the respondents a f the dents are espousing the cause of the RISHU KATARIA 2026.01.14 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CM-25624 COCP-2660 24-CII-2025 2660-2025 (O&M) -4- objectors, an ors, and have incorrectly recorded in th in the Rapat Entry No. 97 at page 18-B of the of the true translated copy of Jamab 020 Jamabandi for the year 2019-2020 (Annexure P xure P-11 with CM-25624-CII-2025), 025), as follows:- “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 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.

2.) CWP No.5690 of 2018 l End another vs Financial Smt. Ravinder Pal Kal E ent and others Commissioner Punjab Present a Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for te for the petitioners 2018 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 , P No. 3278 of 2018. Meanwhile, maintain status quo, as it exists of the property in dispute. 17 pugned order dated 04.12.2017 hall remain stayed.” (Emphasis added)

7. Ld. State Counsel clarifies th fies that as the suit property was surplus, the the surplus land had been resumed b umed by the respondent-State under the Land Ce nd Ceiling Act and further sold to the to the objectors, whose rights are to be necessaril essarily reflected in the said Jamaband s for abandi. It is submitted that it is for this reasons asons that it is mentioned in Rapat apat No. 97 that the rights of the objectors sha ors shall remain unaffected. RISHU KATARIA 2026.01.14 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CM-25624 COCP-2660 24-CII-2025 2660-2025 (O&M) -5-

8. Ld. Senior Counsel for the pe the petitioners further clarifies that rights of the of the objectors are still to be decide decided in respect of which several proceedings dings are pending; including CWP Smt. CWP-5690-2018, titled as ‘Smt. Ravinder Pa der Pal Kaur and another vs. Financia inancial Commissioner Punjab, and others’. It . It is pointed out that the Jamaba 020 amabandi for the year 2019-2020 (Annexure xure P-11), duly reflects the said posi It d position at Pg. 18-F of the CM. It is according ordingly prayed that the decree be im be implemented at the earliest and necessary co ary correction be made in the Rapat E B of apat Entry No. 97 at page 18-B of the true tran e translated copy of Jamabandi for th i for the year 2019-2020 (Annexure P-11 with CM ith CM-25624-CII-2025).

9. I have heard learned counsel f nsel for the parties at considerable length; wher ; whereafter, learned counsel for the S Ms. r the State on instructions from Ms. Swapandeep ndeep Kaur, Tehsildar, Patran, Patia , Patiala, who is present in Court undertakes th akes that necessary correction shall be No. hall be made in the Rapat Entry No. 97 at page N page No. 18-B of the true translated co ated copy of Jamabandi for the year 2019-2020 (Annexure P-11 with CM-25624 25624-CII-2025), thereby reflecting the petitione titioners as owners of the suit property roperty within a period of 08 weeks from today. today. It is further acknowledged dged by learned counsel for the respondent dent-State that at page 18-F of the of the CM-25624-CII-2025 in the Jamabandi (Annexure P-11), it is duly men 018, ly mentioned that CWP-5690-2018, titled as ‘Sm Smt. Ravinder Pal Kaur and anothe another vs. Financial Commissioner Punjab, and , and others’, is pending adjudicatio dication before this Court wherein status quo has been granted qua the suit prop it property and further alienation of the suit prop it property has been stayed. It is dire directed that the said entry shall remain intac intact as it is, till the decision of CWP f CWP-5690-2018. RISHU KATARIA 2026.01.14 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CM-25624 COCP-2660 24-CII-2025 2660-2025 (O&M) -6-

10. Learned Senior Counsel for th t in for the petitioners submits that in view of the f the aforesaid undertaking given by en by learned counsel for the State the instant p stant petition may be disposed of, wit of, with liberty to the petitioners to revive the pr the present contempt petition in case case it is not complied with.

12. Ordered accordingly. In view of the facts noted noted above and in view of the undertaking aking on behalf of the respondent ndent-State, no further orders are required to b ed to be passed in the present petition, tition, and the same stands disposed of, with liber liberty to the petitioners as aforesaid resaid.

14. Rule stands discharged. Pending application(s), if any, s any, shall also stand disposed of. 2026

12.01.2026 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2026.01.14 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.