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
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
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 Act is limited to clerical corrections and cannot alter finalized consolidation schemes or adjudicate disputed titles.
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.
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 ....
The court established that disputes over land entitlements post-consolidation must be resolved in civil court, not through administrative corrections under the Consolidation Act.
The Director of Consolidation lacks jurisdiction to alter finalized consolidation schemes under the Consolidation Act, which can only be revoked by the State Government.
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.