The consolidation authorities under the provisions of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, do not have the jurisdiction to decide questions of title. Such questions are to be decided by a civil court under Section 117 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887.

Mehar Singh, J.

1. On the death of Harnam Das, his land, situate in village Barod, in Tehsil Jind of Sangrur District, was mutated one-half in the name of his widow Subhagan, respondent 1, and the other half in the name of his son, Ranjit Singh. The total area of the land was 142 Bighas and 17 Biswas. So half of that, that is to say, a few Biswas over 71 Bighas was mutated in the name of Ranjit Singh. No partition had taken place between the mother and the son. On February 16, 1949, Ranjit Singh sold 65 Bighas and 8 Biswas of land, out of the total holding of 142 Bighas and 17 Biswas, to Ajit Singh appellant by a registered sale deed. The area sold was both irrigated, whether by canal or well, and unirrigated. Ranjit Singh said in the sale deed that he was the sole owner of the whole land, but because of the Rulers circular in the former Jind State with regard to the rights of widows in Hindu families, half of the land from the inheritance of his father had been mutated in the name of his mother as a widow. He further said that his half share was mortgaged with the Jind Cooperative Bank. He claimed to be in possession of the total area. Specific survey numbers were sold to Ajit Singh appellant.

2. Sometime in 1961 proceedings for consolidation of holdings started in village Barod in consequence of a notification under Section 14 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (East Punjab Act 50 of 1948). In the course of the preparation of the scheme of consolidation on February 5, 1964, the Mukhtar or attorney of respondent 1 raised an objection that joint khewat of respondent 1 be directed to be partitioned, obviously asking the Settlement Officer to make a provision in that behalf in the scheme. In paragraph 5 of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by respondent 1 it is clearly stated that the Settlement Officer gave notice of that objection to Ajit Singh appellant and, after hearing both the parties, ordered that the joint khewat of respondent 1 be partitioned and her share in the land be separated. At that stage Ajit Singh appellant said that respondent 1 was dead and her Mukhtar or attorney had no right or status to have the joint khata partitioned, whereupon the Settlement Officer ordered the Mukhtar or attorney of respondent 1 to produce respondent 1 within ten days before the Consolidation Officer. In paragraph 6 of the petition it is stated that respondent 1 duly appeared before the Consolidation Officer on February 18, 1964, and her statement was recorded by him, when she clearly said that she wanted her joint khata to be partitioned. No return to the petition of Res. 1 was filed by Ajit Singh appellant, but a return to it was filed on behalf of respondents 2 to 6, namely, the State of Punjab, the Director of Consolidation of Holdings, the Settlement Officer, Jind, and the Consolidation Officer, Jind. In that return the facts given as above from paragraphs 5 and 6 or the petition of respondent 1 are not denied. In paragraph 5 of that return it is said that Ajit Singh appellant moved an application under Section 36 of East Punjab Act 50 of 1948 before the Settlement Officer praying for keeping the khewat joint by amending the scheme. On February 20, 1984, the application of Ajit Singh appellant was dismissed by the Settlement Officer, copy of whose order is Annexure A to respondent 1s petition. It is pointed out in that order that when the Settlement Officer visited the village on February 5, 1964, in connection with the confirmation of the scheme of consolidation, Ajit Singh appellant raised two objections, (a) that respondent 1 was dead and her attorney was not competent to ask for partition of land and (b) that since he had purchased specific survey numbers from the joint khewat, the partition will affect him adversely. He, therefore, prayed that application of respondent 1 for partition of the land be disallowed. The Settlement Officer found that respo