The Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings has no authority to go into the question whether the land in dispute is Shamilat Deh or not as the same can only be decided by authorities under the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961.

V.K.Jhanji, J.

1. On 10.8.1999, counsel for the parties had stated that the civil miscellaneous application as well as the writ petition itself be disposed of. At their request, the writ petition by order was adjourned on 12.8.1999. Today when the writ petition has been taken up for hearing, counsel for the respondent is not present despite many calls.

2. In this writ petition, challenge by the petitioners is to order dated 5.6.1996, Annexure P-2 passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Mohali. Order dated 5.6.1996, Annexure P-2 came to be passed on the application filed by the right-holders of the village under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The right-holders contended that there was a Khewat in the name of Shamlat Deh Hasab Hisas Mudarja Sajra Hasab which is under the possession of Maqbooza Malkan. They contended that during consolidation, instead of partitioning this land, the same was kept joint and they being proprietors of the village, this land is required to be partitioned among them. They also challenged mutation No. 809 which had been sanctioned in favour of Panchayat and contended that the same be declared illegal.

3. Upon notice of the application, petitioners raised question of title as also question of delay and laches in regard to the filing of the application. Gram Panchayat contended that the consolidation took place in the village more than 30 years ago and after a lapse of such a long time, right-holders have, no right to get the land in dispute partitioned. Gram Panchayat also questioned the jurisdiction of the Additional Director, Consolidation to try the petition. It contended that the question of title could only be decided by the Collector under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961. Despite the objections raised by the Gram Panchayat, the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings allowed the application filed by the right-holders and vide order dated 5.6.1996, Annexure P-2 directed that the land be partitioned among the right-holders. Hence this writ petition.

4. The grievance made by the petitioners in this petition is that the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, without adverting to the objections raised by the petitioners to the prayer made by the right-holders, has partitioned the land under Section 42 of the Act in an arbitrary manner. Counsel contended that the writ petition has now come to be covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat, Kakran v. The Additional Director of Consolidation and Anr., J.T. 1997(8) S.C. 430. Reference has also been made to another judgment of the Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat, Nurpur v. State of Punjab and Ors., (1997-2)116 P.L.R. 694 (S.C.) and the Division Bench Judgment of this Court rendered in C.W.P. No. 16747 of 1996 titled Gram Panchayat Village Surajpur v. Director, Consolidation of Holdings, decided on 4.11.1997.

5. In the present case, consolidation proceedings in the village were completed in the year 1959. The right-holders filed petition under Section 42 of the Act before the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings in the year 1996. No reason whatsoever has been given by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings for entertaining the petition after such a gross delay. In Gram Panchayat Kakrans case (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that the application under Section 42 of the Act is not to be entertained if filed after gross delay. Division Bench of this Court in Gram Panchayat Village Surajpurs case (supra), quashed such like order of the Director, Consolidation of Holdings. In Gram Panchayat Nurpurs case (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings has no authority to go into the question whether the land in dispute is Shamilat Deh or not as the same can only be