Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Lisa Gill, Ritu Tagore, JJ.
Baldev Singh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Director Consolidation Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CWP No. 17632 of 1995(O&M) and CWP No. 5149 of 2007(O&M)
Decided On : 24-11-2022
Consolidation of Holdings - Section 42 of the Consolidation Act - 1948 - 31.10.1995 - The court discussed the interpretation of Section 42 of the Consolidation Act and its limitations on the authority to decide a disputed question of title. The court emphasized that the authority under Section 42 is only empowered to correct errors committed during consolidation but not to decide a disputed question of title. The judgment highlighted the limited jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities and their inability to determine questions of title, directing parties to file petitions under the appropriate provisions of the law for such determinations.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over land holdings in village Akar, District Patiala, following a consolidation of land holdings in 1956. The petitioners claimed to be the right holders/proprietors of the land, while the Gram Panchayat asserted its ownership based on mutation and consolidation orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Director Consolidation, Punjab, was only empowered to examine the legality and propriety of orders or schemes during consolidation and to correct errors, but not to decide a disputed question of title. The court dismissed the writ petitions but allowed the petitioners to approach the competent authority for further proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was the scope of authority under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act and whether the Director Consolidation could decide a disputed question of title.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the authority under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act is limited to correcting errors committed during consolidation and does not extend to deciding disputed questions of title. It emphasized the need for parties to approach the appropriate forums for determinations on questions of title.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, but the petitioners were allowed to approach the competent authority for further proceedings.
JUDGMENT
Lisa Gill, J. (Oral) - This order shall dispose of CWP No. 17632 of 1995 and CWP No. 5149 of 2007 as the challenge in both the writ petitions is to order dated 31.10.1995, Annexure P-11, passed by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jalandhar.
2. Both the writ petitions are taken up together for hearing and decision at request and with consent of learned counsel for the parties.
3. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the petitions, as pleaded, are that petitioners in both the writ petitions claim to be the right holders/proprietors of village Akar, District Patiala. It is pleaded that the land in question measuring 1396 Bigha-07 Biswas belonged to the proprietors as per 'Sharat Wajub-Al-Araz' with entry in the column of ownership recorded as 'Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Zar Khewat' and in the column of cultivation as 'Maqbooza Malkan'. It is stated that the land in question belonged to the proprietors jointly and nature of the land is recorded as 'Banjar Quadim'. Consolidation of land holdings in village Akar took place in the year 1956 and in the 'Misl Haqiat', Nagar Panchayat was recorded as the owner and in the column of cultivation, the proprietors were reflected. Mutation no. 386 was sanctioned in this respect. It is stated that out of total land of 1396 Bighas 07 Biswas, a cut of 38 K 18 M was applied for the use of common purposes such as cremation ground, hadda rori, place of worship, school, paths etc. Petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short 'the Consolidation Act'), was filed by some of the residents of village Akar, District Patiala. The Director, Consolidation, Punjab, vide order dated 13.12.1985 held mutation no. 386 dated 12.06.1956 to be illegal, nonest, thus not conferring any right or title. The Consolidation Officer was directed to distribute the land measuring 2263 K 16 M among the share holders according to their shares.
4. Gram Panchayat challenged order dated 13.12.1985 by way of CWP No. 147 of 1986, which was dismissed in limine on 29.08.1986. SLP No. 11716 of 1986 filed by the Gram Panchayat Village Akar was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 06.04.1987. Persons impleaded as private respondents in the present writ petitions, who took the land in dispute on lease on yearly basis from the Gram Panchayat, challenged order dated 13.12.1985 passed by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, by way of CWP No. 564 of 1986, on the ground that they being interested parties were not heard before passing of order dated 13.12.1985. Said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 08.08.1988. Civil Appeal nos. 342728 of 1990 filed by the private respondents was disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 12.04.1994 holding that the appellants therein had acquired some rights which need to be protected. Resulantly, impugned orders passed by the Director as well as the judgment of this High Court were set aside and the matter remanded back to the Director for being disposed of afresh after hearing the appellants therein as well as all other necessary parties. It is further observed in order dated 12.04.1994, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Director before passing appropriate orders would consider whether any or all of the appellants in civil appeal were in possession of the land as tenants and if so, how their rights can be protected even if title to the land is to be decided in favour of the respective share holders.
5. Pursuant to order dated 12.04.1994, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, impugned order dated 31.10.1995 was passed by the Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jalandhar. Petition under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act, filed by the share holders/proprietors was dismissed while observing that the Director while exercising powers u/s 42 of the Consolidation Act, is only to examine the legality and propriety of any order/scheme or repartition done during the consol
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act, emphasizing their inability to decide disputed....
Authority under Section 42 of the Act of 1948 cannot adjudicate on disputed titles and is limited to correcting clerical errors in consolidation schemes.
The court emphasized the limitations of the authority under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act 1948 and highlighted the distinction between 'Shamilat Deh' and 'Jumla Mushtarka Malkan' in the context....
Jurisdiction under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings Act is limited to clerical corrections and cannot adjudicate title disputes, which are reserved for Civil Courts.
The Director of Consolidation lacks jurisdiction to alter finalized consolidation schemes under the Consolidation Act, which can only be revoked by the State Government.
Jurisdiction under Section 42 of the Act is limited to clerical corrections and cannot alter finalized consolidation schemes or adjudicate disputed titles.
The jurisdiction under Section 42 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act is limited to correcting clerical errors and cannot be used to alter finalized consolidation schemes or adjudicate disputed titl....
Disputes related to land entitlements and mis-allotments should be settled in a civil suit, not under Section 42 of the Act of 1948.
The court affirmed that disputes regarding consolidation schemes must be resolved through appellate remedies, and title disputes among estate holders are to be adjudicated by civil courts, not under ....
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
