Bachat land resulting from consolidation operations should be re-distributed among the right holders, and the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, has jurisdiction to order such re-partition.

M.L.Singhal, J.

1. Before the advent of Consolidation operations in Village Bhedpura, there was total land measuring 1194 Bighas 2 Biswas recorded as Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Ragha Khewat in the revenue record. This land was in the possession of the right holders of the village. During Consolidation operations, this land was distributed as per the shares of the right holders of the village and was included in the khatas of the right holders as reflected in the Naksha Hakdarwar. During Consolidation, with a view to fulfil the common purposes of the village, the Consolidation Authorities imposed a pro-rata cut on all the right holders of the village. Imposition of pro-rata cut on the right holders of the village for the common purposes of the village, is permissible under the provisions of Section 18 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act,1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act No. 50 of 1948) in the Scheme of Consolidation. According to Ujagar Singh and other right holders, after utilising the land for common purposes of the village in the wake of imposition of a pro-rata cut on the right holders, land was still left which is known as "Bachat Land". Bachat land should have been re-distributed amongst the right holders" Hasab Rasad Raqba Khewat". According to the rules framed under the Act No. 50 of 1948 only limited area could be eked out for meeting the common purposes of the village by imposing a pro-rata cut on the right holders but, in this case, an area measuring 219 bighas and 12 biswas was reserved for "Charand" in the village. It was improper for the consolidation authorities to have reserved area for charand. In the re-partition scheme, so much reservation of area for the income of the Panchayat or charand was illegal. Although, the bachat land should have been re-distributed amongst the right holders, the same was mutated in the name of the Gram Panchayat. Mutation of bachat land could not have taken place in the name of the Gram Panchayat. During consolidation, about 470 bighas and 8 biswas of land which is culturable was "Bachat land" which should have been partitioned amongst the right holders as it was the property of Jumla Mushtarka Malkan.

2. Ujagar Singh and other right holders instituted petition under Section 42 of Act No. 50 of 1948 challenging re-partition and the consolidation scheme. The Additional Director, Consolidation, Punjab vide order Annexure P4, allowed this petition and ordered re-partition of the Bachat land amongst the right holders and the amendment of the consolidation scheme. Vide other Annexure P5, the same Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab stayed the auctioning of the bachat land.

3. Gram Panchayat having felt dissatisfied with the orders Annexures P4 and P5 has sought to invoke the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India thereby seeking the quashing of the said orders through the issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari and also thwarting the re-distribution of bachat land by the Consolidation Officer amongst the right holders i.e. respondent Nos. 3 to 43.

4. Grievance of the Gram Panchayat is that the scheme of consolidation was prepared, published and confirmed about 38 years ago under Section 20 of Act No. 50 of 1948 in the general gathering of the village with the consent of all the right holders and the scheme later became part of the statute for carrying out re-partition proceedings. It is the scheme around which the entire consolidation operations, repartition, objections, petitions, appeals revolved and the Consolidation Authorities had to act in consonance and conformity with the scheme. As per jamabandi for the year 1992-93, land mentioned in Khewat No. 173 is shown in the ownership of the Panchayat vesting in it as being Shamlat Deh and the various right holders are shown as lessees under the Gram Panchayat. Gram Panchayat had been leasing out this