Mr. Rajive Bhalla, J.: - CM No.2633 of 2012

CM is allowed.

Copies of jamabandis for the years 2001-02 and 2006-07 (Annexures R-3 and R-4) are taken on record.

Civil Writ Petition No.18291 of 2008

1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 21.3.2007 passed by Director Land Records, Punjab, Jallandhar.

2. The Director Land Records ordered partition, amongst proprietors (respondents no. 2 to 8), of land measuring 92 Kanals-15 Marlas and 75 Kanals-10 Marlas, entered in the revenue record as Gram Panchayat Deh and also directed that the name of the Gram Panchayat be deleted from the column of cultivation.

3. The Gram Panchayat filed a review petition under section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the “1948 Act”) pleading that as on the date fixed, the case was not shown in the list, it could not be defended by the Gram Panchayat. The petition was dismissed by holding that the Director has no power of review.

4. Counsel for the petitioner contends that as the land in dispute is recorded as ownership of the Gram Panchayat, the Director, Consolidation, had no jurisdiction, in view of the prohibition contained in section 13 and the provisions of Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “1961 Act”), to entertain or decide any petition relating to any right, title or interest of a Gram Panchayat in land allotted during consolidation. Reliance for this argument is placed upon judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as Gram Panchayat, Nurpur Versus State of Punjab and others 1997(1) PLJ 268 and Gram Panchayat Village Sidh Versus Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab and others, 1997(1) PLJ 313. It is also contended that the Director, Land Records had no jurisdiction to entertain a petition 49 years after conclusion of consolidation proceedings and then also without assigning any reason.

5. Counsel for the private respondents, on the other hand, submits that as the land in dispute was wrongly recorded as ownership of the Gram Panchayat, during consolidation, the Director Land Records has merely rectified this error. It is further submitted that as the land in dispute was never reserved or used for any common purpose, it does not vest in a Gram Panchayat. Section 13 or 13-A of the 1961 Act do not prohibit consolidation authorities from rectifying errors committed during consolidation proceedings or orders passed thereunder. It is further prayed that as the land in dispute is recorded as ownership of the private respondents under “ the 1948 Act”, there is no error in the impugned order, much less an error of jurisdiction.

6. We have heard counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and impugned orders.

7. The Director Land Records has, by way of the impugned order, reopened consolidation proceedings after a gap of 49 years. Section 42 of the Act postulates that the State may “at any time” call for the records of any proceeding or order to satisfy itself as to its legality. The expression “at any time” can not be construed to grant a licence to the State, or its delegate to reopen consolidation proceedings, after inordinate and unexplained delay. The private respondents have not offered any explanation for delay of nearly half a century in approaching the Director and nor has the Director Land Records recorded any reason for entertaining this petition after 49 years. We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that in the absence of any explanation, much less a cogent explanation for delay in filing the petition, the Director Land Records had no jurisdiction to entertain this petition 49 years after conclusion of consolidation proceedings.

8. The impugned order is even otherwise illegal and void, for want of jurisdiction. The land, in dispute, as is apparent from the petition filed by private respondents, was c