The Director of Consolidation lacks jurisdiction to alter finalized consolidation schemes under the Consolidation Act, which can only be revoked by the State Government.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J.

Since all the writ petition(s) (supra), involve common questions of law, besides, arise from common thereto Annexures, thus, they are amenable to be decided through a common verdict.

2. For the sake of brevity, the facts of CWP-5939-2018 are taken here for deciding the instant controversy.

3. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner(s) ask for quashing of Annexure P-10, as became passed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, exercising the powers of Director Consolidation under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter for short called as the 'Consolidation Act, 1948') besides they also ask for the quashing of Annexure P-11, as became passed by the Tehsildar-cum-Consolidation Officer, Manesar, exercising the powers under Section 21 (2) of the 'Consolidation Act, 1948'.

4. The consolidation operations in the mohal concerned commenced in pursuance to a notification (Annexure P-1), which became issued on 27.03.2000. Subsequently, the Consolidation Advisory Committee was constituted on 25.05.2001. As reflected in Annexure P-3, the said Consolidation Advisory Committee determined the valuations of land, thus in the hereinafter extracted manner.

5. The draft consolidation scheme was published on 16.06.2008 and after the hearing of objections the scheme was sanctioned/accepted on 28.07.2010 (Annexure P-4). Post the making of Annexure P-4, the process of re-partitioning was initiated and was completed from 10.03.2011 to 31.03.2011. The said re-partitioning proceedings are annexed as Annexure P-5. As unfolded by Annexure P- 6, which though embodies thereins the proceedings launched under Section 21(1) of the ' Consolidation Act, 1948', but it appears that the aggrieved from Annexure P-6, did not prefer any appeal or revision thereagainst. Resultantly, possession in terms of the scheme of re-partitioning Annexure P-6, was delivered from 11.06.2011 to 25.06.2011, thus to the estate holders concerned. However, subsequently one Satpal son of Googan and others submitted a complaint (Annexure P-7) to the Director General of Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana, alleging therein that 150 acres of panchayat land valued at Rs. 300 crores has been transferred to the private parties.

6. On Annexure P-7, the Director General of Consolidation while exercising powers under Section 42 of the 'Consolidation Act, 1948', made a direction wherebys the valuations of the panchayat land were ordered to be re-made besides the transfer of panchayat land to the private parties, as made in the consolidation proceedings, but was also set aside (Annexure P-8).

7. Against Annexure P-8, some of the aggrieved filed writ petition bearing No. 21861 of 2012 and on the said writ petition Annexure P-9 became rendered. The operative portion of Annexure P-9 is extracted hereinafter.

"..In view of above, this writ petition is allowed and the order under challenge dated 22.8.2012 (Annexure P8) stands quashed. The Divisional Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon upon whom powers of the Government have been conferred under Section 42 of the Act is directed to take up the matter afresh and pass an appropriate order after affording effective opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Both the parties are directed to appear before the above said officer on 29.7.2013. The Commissioner will serve notice upon the other rightholders also who are likely to be affected.."

8. In pursuance to the above made orders made by this Court, the Director Consolidation passed Annexure P-10, whereby he remanded the lis to the consolidation officer concerned, who made Annexure P-11. Resultantly both Annexures P-10 and P-11 become assailed before this Court.

Reasons for accepting the writ petition(s) and for setting aside the impugned Annexures.

9. It i