SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1967 Supreme(SC) 99

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.N. WANCHOO, R.S. BACHAWAT AND V. RAMASWAMI JJ.
Johri Mal Appellant
Versus
The Director of Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 153 of 1964,
D/- 28-3-1967.
Advocates appeared
M/s Bishan Narain and B. R. L. Iyengar, Senior Advocates, (M/s. S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta. Advocates, with them) for Appellant; Mr. Gopal Singh, Advocate and Mr. S P Nayyar . Advocate for Mr. R. N. Sachthey Advocate, for Respondents.

Advocates:
B.R.L.Iyengar, BISHAN NARAIN, Gopal Singh, K.I.Mehta, R.N.SACH, S.K.MEHTA, S.P.NAIR

The power of the State Government to make reservation of land for common purposes under S. 42 is coterminus with the power of the Consolidation Officer under S. 18 (c) and it follows, therefore, that the order of the Director, dated March 8, 1957 is illegal and ultra vires and must be quashed by grant of a writ in the nature of certiorari under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

Headnote:

EAST PUNJAB HOLDINGS (CONSOLIDATION AND PREVENTION OF FRAGMENTATION) ACT, 1948 - S. 18(C), 36, 42 - EAST PUNJAB HOLDINGS (CONSOLIDATION AND PREVENTION OF FRAGMENTATION) (SECOND AMENDMENT AND VALIDATION) ACT, 1960 (PUNJAB ACT 27 OF 1960) - S. 2, 4, 5, 6 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ART. 226, 31-A(1) - CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS - VARIATION OF SCHEME - POWER OF STATE GOVERNMENT - RESERVATION OF LAND FOR COMMON PURPOSE - RATABLE SHARE OF PROPRIETORS - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE - VALIDITY OF ORDER.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, Johrimal, was allotted a gher in khasra No. 3942 under a scheme prepared by the Consolidation Officer under S. 14 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 1948 (Act L of 1948). The scheme was confirmed by the Settlement Officer acting under S. 20 of the Act. Later, the Director of Consolidation, acting under S. 42 of the Act, ordered that the plot should be reserved for the extension of abadi for non-proprietors. Johrimal challenged the order by filing a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The Punjab High Court allowed the petition and quashed the order of the Director of Consolidation. The State Government appealed to the Supreme Court.

Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the order of the Director of Consolidation was illegal and ultra vires and must be quashed. The Court held that the power of the State Government to make reservation of land for common purposes under S. 42 is coterminus with the power of the Consolidation Officer under S. 18 (c) and it follows, therefore, that the order of the Director, dated March 8, 1957 is illegal and ultra vires and must be quashed by grant of a writ in the nature of certiorari under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

Issues: 1. Whether the order of the Director of Consolidation, dated March 8, 1957 was an order varying Para. 7 of the confirmed scheme and no such variation could be made without following the procedure laid down under Section 36 of the Act? 2. Whether the order of the Director, dated March 8, 1957 is illegal because it violates S. 18 (c) of the Act read with R. 16 (ii)?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the power conferred on the State Government by S. 42 is not controlled by S. 36 and the procedure of publication and hearing objections contemplated by Ss. 19 and 20 of the Act is not necessary. Sections 36 and 42 envisage two different situations and the intention of the Act is to give powers respectively to the Confirming Authority and to the State Government to act under these sections in their discretion in any particular case. 2. The Court held that S. 18 (c) must be read in a restricted sense and the authority of the Consolidation Officer to reserve land for the common purpose under S. 18 (c) of the Act must be restricted in the manner indicated above, and it must be held that the Consodiation Officer has power under the section to take the land out of the common pool of the village only according to the rateable share from the proprietors and other right-holders for any common purpose including the extension of the village abadi.

Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed that a writ in the nature of certiorari should be issued to quash the order of the Director of Consolidation of Holdings Punjab, dated March 8, 1957 with regard to khasra No. 3942 reserving it for extension of abadi for non-proprietors.

Judgement

RAMASWAMI, J. : This appeal is brought, by certificate, from the judgment of the Punjab High Court dated November 8, l96O in Letters Patent Appeal No. 284 of 1956.

2. For the consolidation of land holdings in village Kheowara, a scheme was prepared by the Consolidation Officer under S. 14 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 1948 (Act L of 1948) hereinafter called the Act and the scheme was confirmed by the Settlement Officer acting under S. 20 of the Act. The scheme, among other things, provided that the owners of permanent ghers or enclosures will be permitted to retain them in their possession. One of the proprietors, Johrimal had made a gher in khasra No. 3942 and, under the scheme, this was to remain with him. Para 7 of the Scheme which was finalised under S. 20 of the Act provided as follows :

"The existing houses and permanent enclosures shall be kept in the ownership and possession of those proprietors who were owners in possession prior to the consolidation and in addition if these persons so desire they shall he entitled to be given additional area upto one bigha for extension of the abadi. In the case of such persons of right-holders who have constructed houses or enclosures etc., within the Shamlat area they would keep them, in their possession but adjustment would be made out of their Khewat land......."

Later on the Director of Consolidation, to whom the powers of the State Government under S. 42 of the Act had been delegated reconsidered this matter and ordered that this particular piece of land i.e., khasra No.3942 should be reserved for the extension of abadi for non-proprietors. The Director of Consolidation accordingly ordered that instead of being reserved for Johrimal, the plot should be kept for the non-proprietors and the Consolidation records should be changed to that extent. The order of the Director of Consolidation was dated March 8 1957. Aggrieved with this order, Johrimal applied to the High Court for grant of a writ under Art.226 of the Constitution. The petition was heard by Grover. J. who allowed the petition holding that the Director of Consolidation had no authority to make any order contrary to the scheme without amending the scheme itself, and all amendment of the scheme could be made only under S.36 of the Act and not under S. 42 of the Act. It was accordingly held that the order of the Director of Consolidation was ultra vires and must be quashed by grant of a writ the nature of certiorari. Against this order the Director of Consolidiation of Holdings appealed under Cl. 10 of the Letters Patent. The appeal was heard by a Full Bench which by its judgement dated November 8, 1960, allowed the appeal and reversed the order of the learned Single Judge and ordered that the writ petition should be dismissed. The view taken by the majority of the Judges of the Full Bench was that the impugned order amounted to an alteration of the Consolidation scheme and the State Government had power under S. 42 of the Act as amended by the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) (Second Amendment and Validation) Act (Punjab Act 27 of 1960), to make any change in the Consolidation scheme subject to the requirements of that section. The present appeal is brought by Johrimal against the judgment of the Full Bench of the Punjab High Court.

3. The Act was passed to provide for the compulsory consolidation of agricultural holdings and for preventing the fragmentation of agricultural holdings in the State of Punjab. Chapter III. of the Act deals with consolidation of holdings and it is provided by S. 14 that the Government may either suo motu, or on application made, declare its intention by notification to make a scheme for consolidation of holdings in an estate or estates or part thereof as may be specified. The Consolidation Officer is required to obtain the advice of the land owners and of the non-proprietors and of the Gram Panchayat a







































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top