The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of documentary evidence in land disputes and the authority of the concerned Prescribed Authority to determine the entitlement of the parties involved.

JUDGMENT

Harsh Bunger, J. - Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking quashing of order dated 24.11.2014 (Annexure P-8) passed by the learned District Collector, Fatehabad in exercise of its power under Section 21(4) of the East Punjab Holding (Consolidation and prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (as applicable to the State of Haryana), (here-in-after referred to as 'the Consolidation Act') whereby, order dated 02.12.2005 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned District Revenue Officer, Panipat has been set aside and order dated 17.11.2004 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Consolidation Officer, Hisar has been upheld.

2. It is the contention of the petitioners that private respondents were big land owners and their land was declared surplus by the prescribed authority vide order dated 12.02.1981 (Annexure P-1) and land in dispute comprised in Rect. No.177, Killa no.24/1 (6-12) had come under possession of fore-fathers of the petitioners. It is contended that if land in question is entered into the name of Ishwar Dass etc., then their land will become 432+06K 12M=438K and 12M, which is not permissible as per law.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that private respondents, in order to get undue benefit for themselves and to cause loss to the petitioners, initiated proceedings under Section 21(2) of the Consolidation Act by claiming that Killa No.177//24 (0-16) (standard area) was to be allotted to them at the time of consolidation, however, the same was wrongly entered in the name of the petitioners in the jamabandi for the year 1989-90. Petition under Section 21(2) of the Consolidation Act filed by the private respondents was allowed vide ex-parte order dated 01.04.2004, whereby, Rect. no.177//24/1 (6-12) was allotted in their favour. The petitioners sought setting aside of ex-parte proceedings, which was allowed by the Consolidation Officer, Hisar vide order dated 05.08.2004 (Annexure P-5) and the matter was fixed for further proceedings, which culminated into passing of order dated 17.11.2004 (Annexure P-6), whereby, it was held that Killa no.177//24 was left out to be entered in the name of Ishwar Dass etc. due to mistake and Killa no.177//24/1 had been wrongly entered in the name of Chander Pati in the jamabandi for the year1989-90 and prior thereto, this land had not been given to anyone.

4. Order dated 17.11.2004 (Annexure P-6) was further challenged by the petitioners by way of an appeal under Section 21(3) of the Consolidation Act and the District Revenue Officer, Panipat, vide order dated 02.12.2005 (Annexure P-7) allowed the appeal by holding that Ishwar Dass was a big land owner and his land was declared surplus on 12.02.1981 and at present, the petitioners (appellants therein) were in possession of the land, in question. The said order dated 02.12.2005 was challenged by Ishwar Dass and another by way of filing an appeal, which was accepted by the District Collector, Fatehabad vide order dated 24.11.2014 (Annexure P-8) by holding that Killa no.177//24/1 (6-12) was left to be entered in the name of Ishwar Dass etc. inadvertently and the same was allotted at the time of partition; however, this Killa no. was incorporated in the Jamabandi for the year 1989-90 in khata of Chander Pati and prior thereto, the said land was not found entered in any khata.

5. This writ petition has been filed assailing the said order dated 24.11.2014 (Annexure P-8).

6. Notice was issued in the writ petition, whereupon, the official respondents as well as the private respondents have filed their respective written statements.

7. Respondents no.1 and 2 have filed their written statement by raising certain preliminary submissions and in para Nos.3 and 4 thereof, following stand has been taken :-

'3. xxx xxx It is pertinent to mention here that in the Jamabandi for the year 1989-90, Killa No.177//24/1 was wrongly entered in the name of Smt. Chander Pati/petitioner which was inadvertently left to be entered in the name of Ishwar Dass etc