The partition of shamlat land in three villages was legal and in accordance with the provisions of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961, and the Wajib-ul-Arz.

JUDGMENT

V.K. Bali, J. - Challenge herein is to orders dated 8.2.1995 Annexure P-5 and 6.6.1997 Annexure P-7 passed by Consolidation Officer, Karnal and Director Consolidation, Haryana respectively.

2. The grouse of the petitioners is that the Director Consolidation as also Consolidation Officer have decided to partition the shamlat land in three villages, namely, Kairwali, Amritpur Khurd and Amritpur Kalan, District Karnal vide the impugned orders which is contrary to the provisions of East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 as also Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961 as also to an earlier order dated 18.8.1970.

3. Brief facts of the case as projected in the petition reveal that a notification was issued for providing consolidation in the aforesaid three villages on 17.8.1965. A scheme was framed for providing shamlat land as well. On a petition having been file under section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), the Director held that question of title cannot be decided by the consolidation authorities. He further held that no partition can be done unless all the right-holders agreed. He further held that so far as shamlat land was concerned, the same was not open to partition and had to be kept in one Khewat. On 5.2.1996, the Consolidation Officer again made certain proposals which were in accordance with the order dated 18.8.1970. The order aforesaid dated 5.2.1986 was quashed in CWP No. 3143 of 1986. It was observed by the Division Bench deciding the Civil Writ petition aforesaid that the scheme could be framed in accordance with law and Wajib-ul-Arz. Vide orders dated 8.2.1995 the Consolidation officer instead of amending the earlier scheme and bringing it in accord with the order dated 18.8.1970 framed a new scheme wherein he again provided for partition of shamlat land. Aggrieved, the petition under section 42 of the Act was filed which was dismissed.

4. The Director Consolidation while passing order Annexure P-7 observed that it was clear from the records that consolidation proceedings were started in the aforesaid villages on 17.8.1965 and the scheme was approved on 29.11.1996. As per scheme shamlat land was to be partitioned as per Wajib-Ul-Arz. This was modified when the scheme was approved. It was provided at Sr. No. 6 of the published scheme that shamlat land in the approved scheme at Sr. No. 6 had been purchased and the vendees had set up tube-well at the site and the total land purchased shall be provided alongwith the tube-well after deduction for common purposes. Some landowners who were aggrieved with the partition proceedings filed an appeal under section 42 which was decided on 18.8.1970 wherein the common petition of shamlat land of three villages was set aside. Some right-holders who were dissatisfied with the order dated 18.8.1970 also filed an appeal under section 42 and submitted that shamlat land should not be partitioned. However, the order dated 18.8.1970 was upheld. Thereafter some right-holders filed CWP 3143 of 1986 which was decided on 19.8.1987 wherein the order earlier upheld was set aside and it was directed that a new scheme of consolidation for the concerned villages be prepared in accordance with law and land be given to the right-holders as per Wazib-Ul-Arz. The relevant part of Wazib-Ul-Arz of 1906-07 as per which now the case was to proceed reads as follows :-

"The method of assessment in all the three parties is in equal shares and inside the parties it is in accordance with Hasab Rasad Zare Khewat on the basis of the land revenue as assessed according to settlement of Mr. Douie. It has also been shown that whatever land is recovered from the village is mentioned as shamlat of all the three villages. Whether it is recovered after the loss of any Khewat or is recovered as excess area. The landowners and the occupancy tenants who have lost their land are