Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Kuldip singh and S. Saghir Ahmad, JJ.
Gram Panchayat, Village Sidh - Appellant
Versus
Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 14786 of 1996
Decided On : 21-11-1996
Consolidation Proceedings - Ownership Dispute - The court held that the question of ownership of land after consolidation proceedings could only be decided by the Collector under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the previous orders, and remanded the case to the Collector for a fresh decision.
Fact of the Case:
The consolidation proceedings were completed in the village in 1953-54. The Additional Director Consolidation changed the mutation entries in the revenue record, leading to a dispute over the ownership of the land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the question of ownership could only be decided by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the previous orders, and remanded the case to the Collector for a fresh decision.
Issues: Dispute over ownership of land after consolidation proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The question of ownership of land after consolidation proceedings could only be decided by the Collector under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the previous orders, and remanded the case to the Collector for a fresh decision.
ORDER :
Kuldip Singh, J.
1. Special leave granted.
2. It is not disputed that consolidation proceedings were completed in the village in the year 1953-54. It is further not disputed that prior to consolidation proceedings, the entry regarding Khewat No. 78 measuring 1000 Bighas 16 Biswas was made in the Jamabandi as "Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Raqba Khewat". It is also not disputed that after the consolidation, the entry in the revenue record was in similar terms. The Additional Director Consolidation by the order dated May 1, 1990 changed the mutation entries in the revenue record and distributed part of the land amongst the right-holders. We are of the view that after the enforcement of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, the question of ownership could only be decided by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act. Mr. Palli, learned counsel for the right-holders has contended that the area which was bachat area was distributed amongst the right-holders. It is a question to be decided by the Collector. The right-holders may raise all the points, if they wish to, before the Collector. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of the Additional Director dated May 1, 1990 and also the order of the High Court dated September 12, 1990 and remand the case to the Collector, District Patiala to decide the case afresh in accordance with law, after hearing the parties. No orders as to costs.
Appeal accepted.
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
