The jurisdiction to determine land ownership and order partition lies with the Collector and revenue officers, not the consolidation authority.

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.

1. Gram Panchayat, Phull, Tehsil Shahkot, District Jalandhar has filed the instant petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 16.1.1998 (Annexure P3) passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab (respondent No. 2) vide which an application filed by some of the proprietors of the village under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for partition of the land in question between the right holders of the village has been allowed and the matter was remanded to the Consolidation Officer, Jalandhar with the direction that he should re-partition the disputed land amongst the right holders of the village.

2. The consolidation of Holdings took place in village Phull in the year 1961-62. During the consolidation, some land was reserved for common purposes of the village by imposing pro rata cut on the right holders of the village. The land in question, comprising Khewat No. 192, Khatauni Nos. 244 to 246, total measuring 76 Kanals 1 Maria was also reserved for the common purposes of the village during the consolidation of Holdings. This land has been described in the jamabandi for the year 1994-95 in the name of Musterka Malkan and in the column of cultivation, it has been described as Panchayat deh in possession of the lessee of the Gram Panchayat. The entry regarding lease money is also mentioned against some of the Khataunis in column No. 9 of the above said jamabandi. When the contesting respondents No. 4 to 15 filed the petition qua this land under Section 42 of the Act before the Additional Director, Consolidations, the same was not contested by the Gram Panchayat. The then Sarpanch stated before the Additional Director, Consolidations that the Gram Panchayat has no objection if the land in question is re-partitioned among the right holders of the village. Upon that stand taken by the Gram Panchayat, the impugned order was passed. But, subsequently the petitioner- Gram Panchayat decided to challenge the order dated 16.1.1998 (Annexure P3) passed by respondent No. 2. Hence, the instant writ petition was filed by the Gram Panchayat on 16.10.1998.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the consolidation authority has no jurisdiction to entertain a prayer for re-partition of the Musterka Malkan land reserved for common purposes of the village in the consolidation being a bachat land amongst the right holders under Section 42 of the Act. He submitted that before ordering the re-partition of such land, it has to be determined whether such land, which was reserved in consolidation for common purposes of the village, falls under the, definition of Shamlat deh or the same has vested in the Gram Panchayat or not under Section 4 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1961). To determine such question whether the land in question is a Shamlat deh" or not or the same vests in the Gram Panchayat or not, only the Collector has the jurisdiction under the provisions of the Act of 1961. Neither the authorities under the Consolidation Act nor even the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to decide such question. Learned counsel further submitted that if it has been found by the authority under the Act of 1961 that such land neither falls under the definition of Shamlat deh nor vests in the Gram Panchayat under the provisions of the Act of 1961, even then only the revenue Court has the jurisdiction to order partition of the land under the provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of Honble Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat Nurpur v. State of Punjab and Ors., 1 (1997-2)116 P.L.R. 694 (S.C.); Gram Panchayat village Sidh v. The Addi