Judgment

Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J. :-

Factual Background.

1. Through the instant petition, a challenge is made to Annexure P-3. Annexure P-1 is an application/ petition made by co-respondents No. 2 to 5 herein, petitioners therein, under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (As applicable to Haryana) (hereinafter for short called as the ‘Act of 1948’), thus before the competent Authority concerned.

2. Annexure P-1 became instituted on 26.05.2015. In the said petition, the petitioners therein, respondents No. 2 to 5 herein, pleaded that before the completion of the consolidation operations in the mohal concerned, their ancestors had purchased 27 bigha 5 biswa 10 biswansi land through a sale deed dated 24.06.1957 but mutation of the same could not be sanctioned because at that time the consolidation operations were underway. After finalization of the consolidation operations, new record was prepared in the name of the persons who were owners prior to the consolidation. That subsequently the legal heirs of the vendors filed a petition for partition of 58 kanal 18 marla land praying that they be given possession as per their share. That on verification of record, the petitioners therein, respondents herein, came to know that the consolidation department has wrongly shown them as the owner of ½ share in the new allotted area in lieu of purchase made by them, whereas, they had purchased a major portion of the land from the predecessors-in-interest of the respondents therein, petitioners herein.

3. On the said petition (Annexure P-1), the impugned order Annexure P-3 became passed on 18.03.2020 by the Director, Land Records, Punjab, Jalandhar (exercising the powers under Section 42 of the ‘Act of 1948’).

4. Un-contestedly the consolidation operations concluded in the mohal concerned, in the year 1960, visibly so as then the misal haqiyat became drawn. The core controversy which emerges amongst the contesting litigants, relates to the validity of the deed of conveyance executed inter-se the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners herein, thus with the predecessors-in-interest of respondents concerned. The said sale deed was executed in the year 1957. Necessarily, it is not under contest that the sale deed (supra) were but executed during the phase when the consolidation operations were underway in the mohal concerned. Therefore, since on commencement of consolidation operations in the mohal concerned, and uptil their valid termination, the entire lands which are subjected to consolidation operations, thus are thrown into a common hotch potch, thus through an order of mutation being recorded by the consolidation officer concerned. Resultantly the assignment of specific khasra numbers in the sale deed executed inter-se the concerned, in the year 1957, is but patently flawed. The reason being that when obviously the consolidation operations were yet underway, thus prima facie the above could not have been done nor obviously prima facie the said sale deeds, could be construed to be, as such assigning any right, title and interest rather in those specific khasra numbers which were never in existence in the year 1957, especially when then the consolidation operations were yet underway.

5. The reason for making the above conclusion is embedded in the factum, as stated (supra), that for facilitating the purpose of consolidating the disparate tracts of lands, thus on commencement of consolidation operations, rather they are thrown into a common hotch potch hence through an order of mutation. Resultantly for ensuring that such scattered small parcels of land(s) of the estate holders concerned, rather falling in different areas, or in different portions, thus become consolidated on to their major portions. In the said exercise after receiving the report of the Musavra Committee, the consolidation officer but also in terms of the apposite valuations, besides in terms of the allotable are