SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(P&H) 708

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SURESHWAR THAKUR, LALIT BATRA, JJ.
Tarsem Lal & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
The Additional Director, Consolidation, Punjab At Mohali & Ors. – Respondents
CWP NO. 4929 of 1996
Decided On : 29-04-2024

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Madan Lal Saini, Advocate; For the Petitioners
Mr. Deepak Jindal, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 5.

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 titles.

Headnote:(A) Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1948 - Section 42 - Jurisdiction of authorities under Section 42 is limited to correcting clerical errors and cannot be used to alter finalized consolidation schemes or adjudicate on disputed titles - Orders passed under Section 42 that disturb finalized schemes are legally flawed. (Paras 16, 20, 25)

(B) Jurisdictional Limits - The jurisdiction under Section 42 is not exercisable for disputes regarding title or for altering finalized records post-updation under Section 22 - Aggrieved parties must seek remedies under Section 21 before invoking Section 42. (Paras 21, 23)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged multiple orders regarding land allotments made during consolidation proceedings, asserting their rights as bona fide purchasers. The orders were passed without proper hearings and led to unjust land withdrawals from the petitioners. (Paras 1-15)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the authorities exceeded their jurisdiction under Section 42, leading to flawed orders that required quashing. (Paras 25, 26)

Issues: The main issues included whether the authorities had the jurisdiction to alter finalized consolidation schemes and the proper remedies available to aggrieved parties. (Paras 20, 21)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the jurisdiction under Section 42 is strictly limited and cannot be used to adjudicate on disputed titles or alter finalized records, emphasizing the need for proper legal remedies. (Paras 16, 20)

Result: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned orders were quashed. (Para 26)

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J.

Through the instant writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the impugned orders dated 17.08.1982 (Annexure P-4), dated 12.9.1983 (Annexure P-5), dated 26.05.1992 (Annexure P-6), dated 31.01.1996 (Annexure P-8), and, dated 15.03.1996 (Annexure P-9).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the consolidation proceedings in the revenue estate of village Patti Mashian Zira, Tehsil Zira, District Ferozepur were concluded before the year 1960. Therefore, entitlement of all the right holders were assessed in the Naksha Hakdarwar and thereafter they were allotted lands as per the valuation of their shares. Resultantly, as such the finalized consolidation scheme became drawn, and, also in terms of Section 22 of the Act, became updated.

3. That during the process of partition of Shamlat Deh land a vast track area fallen to the share of one Bihari Lal, who is father of Mohan Lal; a person similarly situated like the petitioners and from them the petitioners purchased land in a bonafide manner for valuable consideration and are in possession of the same till date.

4. That one Gurbax Rai (father of private respondents), was the owner of 2 Kanal and 16 Marlas as per Lari No.918, 919, and in Patti Machian his share came to be around 1 Marla only, and, the same was given to him at the time of partition of the said Khata.

5. That one Jagdish Chander son of Manohar Lal along with his brother filed an application (Annexure P-1) under Section 42 of the Act, whereby they pleaded that by partitioning of Shamlat Deh Khewat rather loss has been caused to them and lesser area has been allotted to them, than their entitlement, thus therebys allotments be made rather in terms of their possession. Similar application was moved by one Raja Devi and, both these applications were treated as petitions No.81 and 196 and were disposed of vide common order rendered on 22.06.1971 (Annexure P-2), by the then Additional Director, Consolidation, and, it was ordered that the scheme be amended and the case was remanded to the Consolidation Officer for necessary action.

6. That the said Jagdish Chander again moved an application under Section 42 of the Act, before the Additional Director, Consolidation, with a prayer that the order dated 22.06.1971 (Annexure P-2) be implemented. The said application was disposed of, on 10.08.1978 (Annexure P-3), whereby it was ordered that it is not possible to implement the said order without disturbing the whole village and the said Jagdish Chander can be compensated out of the Bachat land which has been wrongly allotted in the name of Municipal Committee. Resultantly, the case was sent to the Consolidation Officer for necessary action.

7. In consequent thereto, the Consolidation Officer passed an order dated 24.3.1979, wherein it was ordered that the land be allotted to Shri. Jagdish Chander and Raja Devi etc. out of the Municipal Committee's land. Resultantly, mutation No.9809 was sanctioned in this regard.

8. Subsequently, one Gurbax Rai (father of private respondents) filed an application under Section 42 of the Act in the year 1981, before the Additional Director, Consolidation, with a prayer that the order dated 22.06.1971 (Annexure P-2) as amended vide order dated 10.08.1978 (Annexure P-3) has not been implemented, and, the same be ordered to be implemented. In the said application only State was impleaded as a party. Vide order dated 17.08.1982 (Annexure P-4), the Additional Director, Consolidation without calling any of the right holders and also without looking into the facts that both these orders have already stood implemented, remanded the lis to the Consolidation Officer.

9. The said Gurbax Singh was not a party in the earlier order, and no relief was given to him vide orders dated 22.06.1971 (Annexure P-2) and order dated 10.08.1978 (Annexure P-3), but these orders were passed at the instance of Jagdish Chander and Raja Devi, to whom land was allotted out of the Bachat Land vide m

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top