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.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J.

Through the instant writ petition, the petitioners seek the quashing of order dated 09.02.2022 (Annexure P-7), as became rendered by respondent No. 1, wherebys after elapsing of a period of 32 years, the order dated 20.07.1987 (Annexure P-3) which was rather passed with the agreement of the parties, thus have been set aside.

2. Before proceeding to determine the validity of the above made prayer before this Court, it is imperative to go through Annexure P-1. Annexure P-1, as is but evident on a reading thereof, was passed on a petition as became preferred under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter for short called as the 'Act of 1948').

3. In the said petition, the petitioner had advanced two claims. Firstly that he is a co-sharer in Khata 413/418, thus with the respondents therein and thereby he asked for his share (supra) in the khata (supra) being partitioned. The second contention as became raised thereins related to the over valuations of the land, as became allotted to him in the consolidation scheme, as, thereby land lesser than his entitlement became allotted to him.

4. On the said petition, Annexure P-1 became rendered. Through Annexure P-1, the Additional Director, Consolidation, Punjab made an order of remand to the consolidation officer, with a direction to him that he should determine whether the relevant disputed khasra numbers have been wrongly over valued or not.

5. The Consolidation Officer, Hoshiarpur, in pursuance to Annexure P-1, thus on the statements as became made before him, by the litigants, whereins, they rendered their respective acceptances to the proposed partition/separation of their share in the joint khata, rather through Annexure P-3, thus proceeded to make the relevant allotment(s).

6. Be that as it may, one Ashok Kumar son of Hans Raj who became aggrieved from Annexure P-3, despite his father one Hans Raj making a consensual statement in respect of the relevant partitionings being ordered and which were so done through Annexure P-3, yet laid a motion under Section 42 of the 'Act of 1948'.

7. On the said motion, as became preferred under Section 42 of the 'Act of 1948' as but is evident on a reading of Annexure P-7, there bys the Director Land Records, Punjab, Jalandhar remanded the lis to the District Revenue Officer-cum-Consolidation Officer, with a direction that after hearing the parties, by taking into account the consolidation scheme, major portion of khasra No. 2113, if possible, be partitioned between the present parties.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has argued that the impugned Annexure P-7 has impermissibly caused review of Annexure P-3, and, in his making the said argument, the learned counsel for the petitioners has made dependence, upon, judgments rendered by this Court respectively in cases titled as 'Harbhajan Singh v. Karam Singh and Others', (1966 AIR (Supreme Court) 641); 'Baldev Singh and Others v. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab and Another', (2005 (2) RCR (Civil) 351); 'Gurjinder Singh and Another v. State of Punjab and Another', (2016 (3) RCR (Civil) 342) ; 'Sukhbir Singh and Others v. Assistant Director, Consolidation, Haryana and Others', (2013 (33) RCR (Civil) 275), 'Dharampal v. The Director Consolidation Department, Haryana, Panchkula and Others', (2012 (67) RCR (Civil) 939) and 'Gram Panchayat Village Kakarwal v. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holding, Punjab and Others', (2011 (52) RCR (Civil) 527), whereins, it has been expostulated that there is no power vested under the 'Act of 1948', thus in the statutory authorities contemplated thereins, to make any review of orders passed, on a petition cast under Section 42 of the 'Act of 1948'.

9. Though therebys the counsel for the petitioners may make a well espousal for the quashing and setting aside of Annexure P-7. Nonetheless irrespective of the above, since it