Mr. Rajive Bhalla, J.:- By way of this order, we shall dispose of CWP Nos.259 of 2005 and 9049 of 2010.

2. The Gram Panchayat of Village Sahni, Tehsil Phagwara, District Kapurthala, has filed CWP No.259 of 2005, praying that orders dated 29.12.1988, 30.01.1989, 02.07.1997 and 19.08.2004, passed by the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jalandhar, the Consolidation Officer, Jalandhar, the Director, Consolidation, Punjab, Jalandhar, and the Director, Land Records, Punjab, Jalandhar, respectively, while exercising powers under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Consolidation Act’) may be set aside. Respondents No.8 to 13 have filed CWP No.9049 of 2010, praying that orders passed under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1961 Act’), may be set aside.

3. Before proceeding to record our conclusions, it would be appropriate to set out, facts that have led to the filing of these petitions.

CWP No.259 of 2005

4. Counsel for the Gram Panchayat submits that orders dated 29.12.1988, 30.01.1989 and 02.07.1997 passed by Consolidation authorities, are null and void as neither the Additional Director Consolidation nor the Director Consolidation, much less, other officers had any jurisdiction to entertain and allow the petitions, for exchange of Gram Panchayat land, filed by Sadhu Singh, Harjinder Kaur and office bearers of the then Gram Panchayat. Vide order dated 02.07.1997, land measuring 56 kanals and 4 marlas belonging to the Gram Panchayat was exchanged with land measuring 33 kanals and 1 marla belonging to Sadhu Singh. Vide order dated 29.12.1988, land measuring 43 kanals and 8 marlas belonging to the Gram Panchayat was exchanged with land measuring 23 kanals and 11 marlas belonging to Sadhu Singh and Harjinder Kaur. The then Sarpanch colluded with Sadhu Singh and Harjinder Kaur and conceded their claim depriving the Gram Panchayat of its property and, surprisingly, also filed an application for exchange, which led to the exchanges recorded in the impugned orders. The orders passed, under the Consolidation Act, reveal an exchange of Gram Panchayat property, which can only be allowed in terms of Rule 5 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’) and that too if the exchange is for the benefit of the village community and with prior approval of the Government. It is further argued that order dated 19.08.2004, passed by the Director, Land Records, Jalandhar, refusing to recall these illegal orders on the premise that he has no power of review, is misconceived as orders obtained by fraud or collusion can always be recalled.

5. Counsel for the private respondents submits that the writ petition suffers from unexplained delay and laches. The impugned orders were passed in years 1988, 1989, 1997 and 2004 whereas the writ petition has been filed in the year 2005. It is further contended that the Gram Panchayat passed resolution, dated 24.12.1988 (Annexure R-9/2), conceding the claim of Sadhu Singh. The second petition was filed by the Gram Panchayat. A change in officer bearers, of the Gram Panchayat, does not entitle the Gram Panchayat to challenge these orders. A petition under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act is maintainable for rectification of errors. As Consolidation Authorities have corrected errors, the orders cannot be set aside. It is further contended that the writ petition is, in essence, a public interest litigation, it cannot be filed at the behest of the Gram Panchayat. Even otherwise, the writ petition should not be entertained after a delay of more than a decade and a half. It is also argued that the writ petition should be dismissed as the Gram Panchayat has challenged separate orders by way of a single writ petition. It is also contended that the writ petition should be dismissed as