The restriction in Section 29 of the Pepsu Act against alienation of land begins as soon as a notification is issued and continues during the pendency of consolidation proceedings.

Harbans Singh, J.

1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent involves the interpretation of Section 29 of the Patiala and East Punjab States Union Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 2007 BK (hereinafter referred to as the Pepsu Act). This section runs as follows:-

-

"After a notification under sub-section (1) of S. 14 has issued and during the pendency of the consolidation proceedings no landowner upon whom the scheme will be binding shall have power without the sanction of the Consolidation Officer to transfer or otherwise deal with any portion of his original holding so as to affect the rights of any other landowner under the scheme of consolidation".

Section 30 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Punjab Act) exactly corresponds to Section 29 of the Pepsu Act.

2. In the case before us on 3rd July, 1956 a notification under sub-section (1) of S. 14 of the Pepsu Act was published in the Official Gazette. This notification was not published in the village till 15th October, 1957 the appellant Ranbir Singh, made transfer of certain land belonging to him in the village concerned to his sons by way of gift and mutations were effected. In dealing with the question as to the location of the major portion of Ranbir Singh etc., the Additional Director took into consideration these mutations. The party adversely affected namely, Mangal Singh, filed Civil Writ No. 183 of 1966 challenging this action on the ground that in view of Section 29 of the Pepsu Act, no alienation of land could be taken into consideration for the purpose of consolidation without the sanction of the Consolidation Department. It is a common case that the Consolidation authorises did not apply their mind to the question whether it was a fit case for granting the sanction or not, but it was felt by the Additional Director that inasmuch as the alienation took place before the notification was actually published in the village. Section 29 of the Pepsu Act did not apply and, consequently, there was no question of granting any sanction.

3. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that Section 29 of the Pepsu Act lays down a prohibition against any alienation made after the notification being taken into consideration for the purpose of consolidation unless such an alienation is permitted by the Consolidation Department. Consequently, he accepted the writ petition set aside the impugned order and directed that "they would now proceed with the matter in accordance with the provisions of Section 29 as interpreted in this judgment". He left the parties to bear their own costs. Ranbir Singh being aggrieved has filed this Letters Patent Appeal.

4. It is now well settled that consolidation proceedings cannot be treated to be pending unless at least the Consolidation Officer is appointed. See in this respect Nanga V/s. Additional Director of Consolidation of Holdings, 1965 Cur LJ 31=(AIR 1965 Punj 336). That was a case under Section 32 of the Punjab Act, which is in the same terms as Section 31 of the Pepsu Act. Section 32 of the Punjab Act is as follows:-

-

"After a notification under sub-section (1) of S. 14 has issued no proceedings under Chapter IX of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 in respect of any estate or sub-division of an estate effected by the scheme of consolidation shall subject to the provisions of Section 16-A, be commenced and where such proceedings were commenced before the issue of the notification they shall remain in abeyance during the pendency of the consolidation proceedings".

In that case, however, admittedly the scheme had even been prepared by the Consolidation Officer on the date when the partition was effected.

5 In Balwant Singh V/s. Financial Commr. Punjab 1969 Pun LJ 65 which was another case of Section 32 of the Punjab Act, the following observations were made by the learned Single Judge