Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sureshwar Thakur, Sudeepti Sharma, JJ.
Teja Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CWP No. 8213 of 1995
Decided On : 07-02-2024
Consolidation - East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 - Section 42 - 22 - The judgment discusses the application of Section 42 and Section 22 of the Act of 1948 in a petition related to land consolidation. The court highlights the importance of laying a motion within a reasonable period of time and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in settling disputes related to land entitlements and mis-allotments.
Fact of the Case:
The petition was filed under Section 42 of the Act of 1948, almost 35 years after the finalization of the consolidation scheme. The court acknowledged the time-barred nature of the motion but emphasized the absence of a strict period of limitation in Section 42. The dispute related to mis-allotments and entitlements to lands among the litigants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the motion was time-barred and should have been rejected at the threshold. It also emphasized that disputes related to entitlements and mis-allotments should be settled in a civil suit, not under Section 42 of the Act of 1948.
Issues: Time-barred motion, jurisdiction of Civil Court in settling land entitlement disputes, mis-allotments
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the motion was time-barred and should have been rejected. It also emphasized that disputes related to land entitlements and mis-allotments should be settled in a civil suit, not under Section 42 of the Act of 1948.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned orders, and granted liberty to the aggrieved to access the Civil Court to file a declaratory suit for annulling the updation of records.
Judgment
Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J.
One Karnail Singh, and others instituted a petition under Section 42 of The East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1948”). In the said petition the petitioners claimed the hereinafter extracted reliefs.
“That before consolidation Khata of Harnam Singh, Nidhan Singh, Pal Singh in equal share (1/3 each) was joint and had old Khasra Numbers 706 (3-8), 711 (3-13) and new khasra number 55/62 (5-18) was deducted from Nidhan Singh 1-11, Pal Singh 1-11 and 2-17 from Harnam Singh. The area of above Khasra Number be partitioned amongst the co-sharers according to their share and deficiency caused to the petitioner be made good.”
2. On the said petition, the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab made Annexure P-7, whereby he proceeded to make remand of the lis to the Consolidation Officer concerned, with a direction to him that after hearing all the contesting litigants, his proceeding to, if the said claims are admissible under the scheme, to accordingly allow or reject the said claims.
3. The Consolidation Officer concerned, in terms of directions made, upon him through Annexure P-7, proceeded to, make the amendments in the manners, as detailed in Annexure P-8, amendments whereof become extracted hereafter.
| Sr. No.
| Name of owner | Excluded | Excluded | ||||
| 1. | Karnail Singh-Jarnail Singh- Jit Singh sons of Harnam Singh in equal shares | 55//62 min | 0-18 | 0-18 | 192//18/4 19/2 71//12/5 north-west 77//9/6 north-east Qitta 4 | 3-4 4-3 0-12 0-7 8-6 | 1-4 1-11 0-12 0-7 3-14 |
| 2. | Karnail Singh etc. KH. No.2983 mortgagors, Arjun Singh son of Sunder Singh mortgagee | 192//18/4 | 3-4 | 1-4 | Xxx |
|
|
| 3. | Karnail Singh etc. KH. No.2984 mortgagors, Inder Singh-Sardara Singh sons of Waryam Singh in equal shares mortgagees. | 192//19/2 | 4-3 | 1-11 | Xxx |
|
|
| 4. | Teja Singh- Megha Singh- Harnek Singh sons of Nadhan Singh in equal shares. | 71//12/5 North-West 77//9/6 North-East Qitta | 0-12 0-7 0-19 | 0-12 0-7 0-19 | 55//62 min | 0-18 | 0-18 |
4. The learned State counsel submits, that the aggrieved from Annexure P-8 preferred an appeal there against before the learned Additional Director concerned. On the said appeal, the learned Additional Director made an order on 31.10.1989, whereby he proceeded to after accepting the said appeal make an order of remand to the Consolidation Officer concerned.
5. In pursuance to the said order of remand, the Consolidation Officer concerned, as unfolded by Annexure P-10, proceeded to make the hereinafter extracted corrections or modifications in the consolidation scheme.
| Sr. No. | Name of owner | Excluded | Included | ||||
| Number | O.A. | St. A | Number | O.A. | St. Area | ||
| 1. | Karnail Singh-Jarnail Singh- Jit Singh sons of Harnam Singh in equal shares | 55/62 min | 0-18 | 0-18 | 192//18/4 19/2 71//12/5 North-West 77//9/6 North-East Total: | 3-4 4-3 0-12 0-7 8-6 | 1-4 1-11 0-12 0-7 3-14 |
| 2. | Karnail Singh etc. KH. No.2983 mortgagors, Arjun Singh son of Sunder Singh mortgagee | 192//18/4 | 3-4 | 1-4 | Xxx |
|
|
| 3. | Karnail Singh etc. KH. No.2984 mortgagors, Inder Singh-Sardara Singh sons of Waryam Singh in equal shares mortgagees. | 192//19/2 | 4-3 | 1-11 | Xxx |
|
|
| 4. | Teja Singh- Megha Singh- Harnek Singh sons of Nadhan Singh in equal shares. | 71//12/5 North-West 77//9/6 North-East | 0-12 0-7 0-19 | 0-12 0-7 0-19 | 55//62 min | 0-18 | 0-18 |
6. Annexure P-10 brought grievance to the aggrieved therefrom, and, thus they filed an appeal there against before the Settlement Officer, who through an order embodied in Annexure P-11 after accepting the said appeal proceed to set aside the order made on 04.02.1992, by the Consolidation Officer concerned, and, remanded the lis to him with a direc
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 established that disputes over land entitlements post-consolidation must be resolved in civil court, not through administrative corrections under the Consolidation Act.
Jurisdiction under Section 42 of the Act is limited to clerical corrections and cannot alter finalized consolidation schemes or adjudicate disputed titles.
Authorities under the East Punjab Holdings Act lack power to review orders under Section 42; disputes regarding land titles must be resolved in civil court.
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....
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 jurisdiction under Section 42 of the Act is limited to clerical corrections and does not extend to adjudicating disputed titles, which must be resolved by Civil Courts.
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
