Authority under Section 42 of the Act of 1948 cannot adjudicate on disputed titles and is limited to correcting clerical errors in consolidation schemes.

Judgment

Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J.

The instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.9.1996 (Annexure P-1), whereby the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, after allowing the petition filed under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Act of 1948’), proceeded to remand the case to the Consolidation Officer (Tehsildar), Nabha, District Patiala, for the latter working out the requirements of land, for common purposes, as per provisions of the Consolidation Act of the 1948, and, the Rules framed thereunder, and, also made a direction upon the consolidation officer concerned, to re-partition, and, re-distribute the lands amongst the proprietors, thus according to their entitlements.

2. Though, the above impugned annexure, is a simpliciter order of remand to the Tehsildar concerned, yet it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that since thereby there is re-opening of the finalized consolidation scheme, besides when through the impugned annexure, the authority concerned, has made a prima facie conclusion, thus in respect of the prima facie entitlements of the proprietors concerned, to seek re-partition or re-distribution of the lands, which became earlier earmarked rather for the common purpose of the village proprietary body concerned. Therefore, it is argued, that since, in the wake of a judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in case titled as ‘Parkash Singh and others versus Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab, reported in 2014(2) RCR (Civil) 721, especially when in paragraph 46 thereof, para whereof stands extracted hereinafter, rather it becomes expostulated, that the limited scope of the jurisdiction invested under Section 42 of the Act of 1948, thus in the contemplated thereins authority, is but confined, and, severely trammelled rather to only correct the clerical errors in the scheme or in the orders passed during the consolidation, and, nothing more.

“We, therefore, have no hesitation in recording that it is beyond debate that, if a question arises, before an officer exercising power under the Consolidation Act, regarding any right, title or interest in “Shamilat Deh” “vested” or deemed to have vested in a Gram Panchayat, a Consolidation Officer, the State or its delegate exercising plenary power under Section 42 of the Act, are not empowered, while examining the correctness of any scheme prepared during consolidation or order passed thereunder to record a finding on such a question of title or to hold that land is or is not “Shamilat Deh” and as a consequence whether any right, title or interest vests or does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. The only authority empowered to answer such a question is the Collector, exercising power under Section 11 of the 1961 Act. As a necessary corollary an order passed under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act, holding that the land vests or does not vest in a Gram Panchayat would be illegal and nonest for assumption of jurisdiction where there is none, as opposed to a mere erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or may, at best be construed to be an order passed by a tribunal of limited jurisdiction, in the exercise of its limited powers to correct errors in the scheme or orders passed during consolidation and nothing more. The latter conclusion would require a degree of explanation.”

3. Therefore, it is argued, that there is but a restriction caused thereins, viz-a-viz the competent authority to in its exercising jurisdiction, under Section 42 of the Act of 1948, thus either enter into or to adjudicate, any lis, thus involving any disputed question of title. Thus, the impugned annexure prima facie making a conclusion, that the proprietors concerned, are entitled to re-distribution or re-partition of the lands, despite the disputed lands, becoming allotted in the finalized consolidation scheme, thus for the common purposes of the village proprietary body, or the same being e