JUDGMENT
D.K. Kapur, J.
(1) Civil Writ Petition No-971/84 was decided by us on 27th September, 1984. The said petition had claimed a mandamus to direct the authorities to m.ike suitable entries in the Khasra Girdawari relating to petitioner’s cultivating possession of a plot of land situated in village Kadipur, Delhi According to the petitioner, he was cultivating the plot in question for a long time, but the Gaon Sabha had claimed that it was waste land which had vested in the Gaon Sabha. The entries in the Khasra Girdawari showed the petitioner to be in cultivating possession for a number of years, but these entries had not been made in the recent past.
(2) In accordance with the petition, we passed the following order :
“WE would accordingly issue a writ in the nature of mandamus without in any way deciding about the petitioner’s rights and we direct these authorities to deal with the petitioner’s claim within three months. We further direct that the Patwari must visit the place, i e. land in question within fifteen days after informing the petitioner, as the harvest is likely to take place in a short time.”
by the present petition, it is claimed that the order granting the Writ Petition has been disobeyed by respondents Nos. 2 to 4, who are the Patwari, Girdawar Kanungo and Tehsildar concerned with making the relevant entries.
(3) A reply has been filed as also a rejoinder. We have considered the points involved in this case with a great deal of care as, prima facie, it did appear that the entries had not been made in the Khasra Girdawarii.
(4) We found that new Rules had been framed called the Delhi Land Revenue (Second Amendment) Rules, whereby the Delhi Land Revenue Rules, 1962, were amended. The consequences of these amendments are to change the procedure to some extent regarding the manner in which possession of persons other than the tenure holders are to be recorded.
(5) In order to explain the changes, it is necessary to note the practical effect of the changes. The previous rule relating to this matter was Rule 6313), which related to the entries to be made in columns 4 and 5 of the Khasra Girdawari. This sub-rule said as follows : “(3)If a person other than the one recorded in column 4 or 5 is found to be in actual occupation of the plot at the time of the partal, his name shall be recorded in red ink in the remarks column as baqabza so and so. Note -All entries in such cases are intended to show the fact of possession : these shall under no circumstances be held as recognition of any illegal transmission.”
An analysis of the Rules as they existed showed that the Khasra Girdawari was to be in Form No P-4 annexed to the Rules and columns 4 and 5 relate to the names of tenure holders whereas column 21 is the Remarks column, in practice, what this meant was that if a person other than the tenure holder of the land was in possession, then the entry regarding possession to another would be made in column 21 under Remarks.
(6) There is another form relating to Rule 66, which is Called Form P-5. This is the list of changes to be recorded in the Khasra Girdawari The new Rules have amended Rule 63(3) to read as follows : “(3)If a person other than the one recorded in column 4 and 5 of Form P. 4 is found to be in actual cultivatory occupation of any field at the time of the partal his name and the crop shall be shown in Form P. 5. Provided that no entry in Form P. 3 shall be made if : (a) the field was not sown ; or (b) The crop failed and the field was not re-sown in the same season. Explanation:- For removal of doubts it is hereby clarified that entries made in Form P. 5 as aforesaid shall not be construed to b conferring any title or right on recognition of the cultivatory possession or evidence for such possession.”
Thus. instead of the entry being made in column 21 of Form P-4. the fact of actual cultivating possession has now to be in Form P. 5. Fur this purpose, a new Form P 5 has been made which has column 8. in which this very fact of some other person being in cultivating possession has to be recorded. The Explanation which appears at the end of Rule 63(3) as quoted above is more or less similar to the Note which appeared in Rule 63(3) as it originally stood.
(7) There is a new Rule 67, which shows what has to happen to Form P. 5. This is the procedure for confirming what is contained in Form P. 5. For convemence, the amended Rule is reproduced below : “67.List bow to be utilised- (1) The patwari shall prepare extracts from the list in Form P. 5 referred to in rule 66 and band over the same to the person or persons mentioned in columns 4 & 5 of Form P. 4 or to their respective heirs where any such person or persons have died obtaining in all cases their signatures on the copy of the list meant for onward transmission to the Tebsildar. In case, it is not practicable to ensure personal service, then the postal acknowledgement by the address shall be kept on record. Explanation : -For purposes of this sub-rule, it is clarified that if service of the extracts is effected by any mode other than the ones mentioned in these rules, it shall be presumed that the requirement of this sub-rule was not fulfillled. (2) The list in Form P. 5 referred to in rule 66 shall be sent to the Girdawari Kanungo, in duplicate and the third copy to the Pardhan, Gaon Sabha (3) On receipt of the statement in Form P. 5, the Girdawar Kanungo, shall forthwith examine that the extracts as required in sub-rule (i) have been issued. In any case, if he finds that the extracts have not been issued, he shall have then issued in the manner provided in the said sub-rule. (4) Thereafter the Girdawar Kanungo shall fix date & time of his inspection for verification of the entries in the list in Form P. 5 submitted to him by the Patwari with advance intimation to the Pradhan Goan Sabha. (5) After inspection and verification of the entries, the list in Form P. 5 shall be submitted by the Girdawar Kanungo to the Tehsildar having jurisdiction for confirmation of entries in Form 5. (6) After confirmation of the entries one copy of the list shall be referred by the Tehsildar to the Patwari who shall record the same along with the Khasra girdawari. (7) If on receipt of the list in Form P. 5 ; it is found that a person other than the one recorded in column 5 of Form P. 4 of the Khasra Girdawari is in cultivatory possession of the land vested in the Gaon Sabha, the Tehsildar shall forthwith make a report thereof to the Revenue Assistant for such action as may be deem fit for the ejectment of the person found in such occupation. (8) The person affected if he is aggrieved, may apply for correction of papers to the Tehsildar or the Revenue Assistant, as the case may be ; the relevant extract from the current Khataur shall accompany every application for correction.”
Having reproduced the rule, it is now necessary to formulate the point that has arisen. According to the respondents, the recording of the entries in Form P. 5 is sufficient compliance with the judgment of this Court. According to Petitioner, the entry has to be put into the Khasra Girdawari also. These rival contentions lead to the question as to how the judgment of this Court has to be complied with.
(8) The important Rule for this purpose is the amended Rule 67(6) reproduced above. This shows that after confirmation of the entries in Form P. 5, the Patwari has to record the same along with the Khasra Girdawari. According to the respondents, it is sufficient if Form P. 5 is attached to Form P. 4. But, according to the petitioner, this is not enough. It is contended that the words ‘along with the Khasra Girdawari’ mean that the entry has to be entered in the Khasra Girdawari.
(9) Both the interpretations appear attractive when examined by themselves. The language of the Rule is ambiguous and ins ome sense unsatisfactory. However, if we analyze the rules as they are, the meaning becomes more clear. All these rules are to be found in Chapter Iv, which is concerned with the Khasra Girdawari and the map. Rules 56 onwards deal with the entries to be made in the Khasra Girdawari. Various rules appearing thereafter are concerned with the method by which the columns in the Khasra Girdawari have to be filled in. Rule 66 is concerned with changes to be made in the Khasra Girdawari. As noted earlier. Rule 63 deals with the names of the tenure holders and sub-tenure holders. These have to be made in columns 4 and 5 of Form P. 4. The recording of possession of others is to be made in red ink under the original Rule 63. But. now the entry is not made directly in Form P. 4, but first made in Form P. 5.
(10) Now turning to Rule 66, it shows how the changes are to be made in the entries and Rule 67 shows how Form P. 5 is to be utilized. After Form P. 5 is prepared under Rules 66, it is to be utilised in the manner set out in The Rule 67. It is hardly necessary to verify all the changes if they are not to be entered in the Khasra Girdawari. It appears to us that the purpose of verification set out in the new Rule 67 is only to bring about the necessary changes in the original Khasra Girdawari. I here is no other procedure for changing the Khasra Girdawari except by the verification method set out by Rule 67. Naturally, all changes which have to be made, have certainly to be incorporated in the Khasra Girdawari.
(11) Any other interpretation seems to us to lead to an absurd result. Suppose the tenure holder has changed. How is the change to be recorded in the Khasra Girdawari ? It appears that the only method is by verifying the entries in Form P. 5. If the change is only to be placed along with the original Khasra Girdawari, it will mean that no change can ever be made. We do not think this was the intention. All the entries in Form P. 5 are really steps in which the changes to be made from Form P. 5 to Form P. 4. It follows that if there is a person other than the tenure holder or sub-tenure holder found in possession after verification, he is also to be entered in the Khasra Girdawari under the ‘remarks’ column.
(12) This interpretation is confirmed by Rule 67(7) as it now exists. This shows that once it is found that somebody else is in cultivating possession, then action has to be taken to take ejectment proceedings against the occupant. If this is not recorded at all and is kept in Form P. 5, the whole purpose of the amendment will we lost.
(13) As Rule 67(5) makes no distinction between the types of changes to be made in the Khasra Girdawari, we think that the only way to give effect to this procedure is to say that after the verification the entries have to be changed in the Khasra Girdawari.
(14) It is necessary to add that these changes, as made by following the procedure under Rule 67, have to be put into the Khasra Girdawari for the following year. This is indicated by Rule 70 which states as follows : “70.Subsequent order regarding changes- No attempt shall be made to make any change in the Khasra on the basis of the orders subsequently received in respect of the report submitted by the patwari but these shall be shown in the relevant columns of the Khasra of the succeeding year.”
It so happens that according to the petitioner, he has been in cultivating possession continuously for a number of years and has been so shown in a number of previous Khasra Girdawari entries in earlier years. So, as far as this petitioner is concerned, perhaps every year is a succeeding year.
(15) We were told at the end of the hearing that the relevant entries would be made in accordance with what we now indicate. As the point of application of judgment and compliance with the same depended on the interpretation of the amended Rule, we think the contempt will be discharged by merely complying with the directions now made. The directions are that the entries should be made in the Khasra Girdawari in the ‘remarks’ column. This contempt petition is accordingly disposed of.