Back
2012(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1072
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan
Civil Writ Petition No.11442 of 1991 (O&M)
Sarup Singh son of Rolla Singh
v.
Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Pb., Chd.
{Decided on 02/09/2011}
(A) East Punjab Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1948, S.42--Challenge to a Consolidation Scheme--If the scheme is under challenge, there is no bar of limitation as such--The bar of limitation is not the same thing as declining to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground of laches--If some reasons were given as to why petitioners had not approached earlier, then it should have been possible for the authority to take notice of the same--If there was anything inherently wrong about the scheme that was framed and the reservation of the property as shamilat deh for the benefit of the villagers was wrongly cast, then a challenge to such a scheme could still be possible. (Para 5)
(B) Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, S.2(g)--’Shamlat deh’--Reference to entry in the revenue record as shamilat hasab rasad zar khewat it self is superfluous and it cannot detract from a position that the property became vested with the Gram Panchayat unless partition among co-sharers is proved--Consolidation Officer himself has no jurisdiction to decide on the issue of ownership after the Village Common Lands Act came into effect.
(C) Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, S.2(g)--’Shamlat deh’--the nature of land that stands entered in revenue records as Shamilat Deh Hasab Rasad Raqba Khewat is still Shamlat Deh vesting in Panchayat unless a partition or exclusive individual cultivation of proprietors is shown. (Para 5)
(D) East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1948, S.42--Contention that joint petition is not maintainable is a stale contention, for so long as petitioners have a joint cause of action, namely, the rights as lessees are threatened by an action of the Consolidation Authority in directing the Consideration of claims of persons, who could not have stakes their claims, they were surely aggrieved and their right to join together cannot be doubted.
A joint petition that the law would frown upon, would be instances where there is a misjoinder of not merely the parties but also of the causes of action--Multifariousness which would cause embarrassment at the trial or which can create a confusion by diverse interest of persons forcing an adjudication, ought to be treated in a different manner from a situation when persons, who have a joint right to contend that a particular order passed was erroneous and their joint interests as such lessees are liable to be prejudiced by the impugned order--The jointness of action could be either of joint interest in the land or a common character in relation to the land--In this case, the common character envisaged is that they were lessess of different portions of land and they surely have right of challenge to the correctness of the order impugned is erroneous, liable to be quashed. (Paras 7 & 9)
Mr. K.Kannan, J. (Oral):- The writ petition is filed at the instance of persons, who claim to be lessees of certain portions of the property from the Gram Panchayat. Intervention was sought in relation to the proceedings of the Additional Director, Consolidation on a petition filed by several persons, who are the private respondents here, under Section 42, against the repartition made under Section 21(1) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act of 1948.
2. The contention of the petitioners therein before the Consolidation Authority was that the property had been entered in the village records as shamilat deh hasab rasad zar khewat and had vested with the rightholders of the village and the mutation ordered in the name of the Gram Panchayat by the proceedings dated 03.07.1956 and consequent upon such proceedings, the mutation actually effected on 16.07.1956, were wrong and they were required to be set aside and the property allowed to be partitioned amongst the rightholders. The Additional Director accepted the contention partially and held that the mutation effected without giving notice to the rightholders was liable to be ignored as non est and the prayer for partition though cannot be granted, the case was required to be remanded to the Consolidation Officer so as to enable determining the shares of the rightholders and appropriate order to be passed taking into account the latest jamabandi. All these proceedings came about in the year, 1990 that is, nearly 34 years after the consolidation proceedings. The petitioners here, feeling aggrieved by this order, sought to challenge the same before the Director, who rejected the petition stating that he had no power to review. The petitioners’ claim was that they were lessees of the property from the Gram Panchayat and the direction for consideration of the respective shares of the proprietors would seriously prejudice their actual possession of the property and their rights as such lessees.
3. Before me, it is vehemently contended by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the issue of alleged wrong mutation cannot be a subject for an adjudication before a Consolidation Officer. The character of property and the ownership could not also be a point of adjudication before the Consolidation Officer especially after the coming into force of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act of 1961. The counsel would rely on the judgment of this Court in Gram Panchayat, Village Kheri Maian Versus Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab and others-2005 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 640, that held that the authorities under Consolidation Act have no jurisdiction to adjudicate an issue of the nature and ownership of land reserved for common purposes at the time of consolidation. The counsel would also rely on a judgment of this Court in Piara Singh Versus Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab and others 2005 (2) PLR 675, to contend that persons, claiming as proprietors and seeking for partition, cannot approach before the Consolidation Authority under Section 42 after two decades and if there was a delay and laches, it shall not be competent for Consolidation Authorities to reopen the order already passed and the scheme effected thereon. Yet another judgment that supports the similar issue of the effect of delay and laches was Joginder Nath alias Joginder Pal Versus Sat Pal-2010 (2) RCR (Civil) 217.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has three contentions to make: (i) There is no period of limitation for a challenge to the consolidation scheme, as laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Shri Jagtar Singh Versus Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab and another-1984 PLJ 223. (ii) The petitioners claiming to be lessees from Gram Panchayat, have no locus standi to file the petition under Section 226 when the Gram Panchayat itself has not chosen to challenge t
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
