The Director of Consolidation of Holdings has the jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Sec. 42 of the East Punjab Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, to re-partition land among proprietors, even if the land is claimed to vest in the Gram Panchayat under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, and the petitioners, as leaseholders, have no right to be impleaded as parties to the proceedings.

G.R.MAJITHIA, J.

1. The writ petitioners have challenged the order of the Director of Consolidation of Holdings Punjab passed under Sec.42 of the East Punjab Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the Act) in this petition.

2. The brief facts as unfolded in the writ petition are these. The petitioners are in possession of different parcels of land under the Gram Panchayat (respondent 2). The land was described as Shamlat deh in the revenue record and owned by the Gram Panchayat. It was mutated in the name of the Gram Panchayat in the year 1956-57 under the provisions of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Village Common Lands Act).

3. The right holders of the village, including respondents 3 to 6, preferred a petition under Sec.42 of the Act before the Director of Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, in Aug. 1985, contending that the land in dispute was Banjar Qadim and according to the entry in the Wajib-ul-Arz of the village it had to be apportioned among the proprietors and Khewatdars of the village prorate of their holdings in the revenue estate, that the Direct or of Consolidation of Holdings had no jurisdiction to hold that the land in dispute vested in the Gram Panchayat and was liable to be partitioned among the proprietors; that the petition had been filed after a lapse of 25 years; no petition under Sec.42 of the Act could be filed challenging the title of the Gram Panchayat over the land in dispute and the proper remedy lay under Sec.11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, and that the Collector was the proper authority to decide whether the land vested in the Gram Panchayat or not.

4. Respondents 3 to 26 who are the proprietors filed a joint written statement. They controverted the allegations made by the petitioners in the writ petition and averred that the disputed land was described in the Record of rights prior to consolidation as banjar and banjar quadim in the individual cultivating possession of the Khewatdars, and in the column of cultivation it was recorded as in possession of Malkan (owners) while in the column pertaining to assessment it was recorded as bila lagan bawajah kabza sab ka hissedari (without payment of rent being in possession of co-sharers); that it could not vest in the Gram Panchayat and the Director of Consolidation of Holdings was perfectly justified to partition the land as per rules on the basis of entries in the Wajib-ul-arz and there was no bar of limitation to a petition under Sec.42 of the Act when the re-partition and the scheme has been challenged.

5. The Gram Panchayat respondent, through its Sarpanch, filed an affidavit dt/- April 25, 1986, in which the allegation that the order of the Director of Consolidation of Holdings was passed in favour of the proprietors in collusion with the Sarpanch, Gram Panchyat, was denied, and it was urged that the Gram Panchayat had challenged the order of the Director of Consolidation through C.W.P. No.147/1986 titled as Gram Panchayat. Akar V/s. Director, Consolidation of Holdings. Punjab, Chandiga rh and 24 others.

6. Respondents 3 to 26 through C.M. No. 2116/87 sought vacation of the stay order granted in favour of the writ petitioners and placed on record a copy of the order passed by a Bench of this Court in C.W.P. No.147/1986 (supra) dismissing the writ petition filed by the Gram Panchayat. The order of the Bench of this Court was upheld by the Supreme Court of India in Special Leave Petition filed by the Gram Panchayat.

6A. The writ petitioners filed reply to C.M. No. 2116/87 (supra). They did not dispute the facts mentioned by the right holders in the civil miscellaneous but the gravamen of the charge was that the Sarpanch was in collusion with the right-holders and he was not protecting the interests of the Gram Panchayat.

7. Mr. P.K. Palli, the learned senior advocate, made the following submissions :-