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 consolidation act.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J.

Since a common issue is involved in both the writ petitions therefore both the writ petitions, are amenable to be decided through a common verdict.

2. For the sake of brevity the facts are taken from CWP-19946- 2018.

3. Through the instant petition, the petitioners pray for the issuance of a writ of mandamus for setting aside the impugned order dated 15.05.2018, as embodied in Annexure P-11, passed by the learned Commissioner concerned, through his exercising powers under Section 42 of The East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1948"), vide which the representation/ application of the petitioners for setting aside the implementation of the consolidation scheme prepared in the year 1978, has been dismissed. They also became aggrieved from Annexure P-9, whereby the District Collector, Bhiwani, has strived to in terms of the powers conferred under Section 22(1) and 23(2) of the IPC, through his appointing BDPO as Duty Magistrate, to ensure that the demarcation proceedings of the disputed sites is carried out.

4. In the year 1978 consolidation of the estates of village Asalwas Maratha and Golpura, Tehsil and District Bhiwani, and, pertaining to the petitioners was carried out under the Act of 1948. The proceedings for preparation of scheme and re-partition were completed by the respondents, but the respective physical possession was not got delivered by the competent authority concerned, in accordance with the scheme to the respective shareholders, and consequently all the inhabitants/shareholders of both the estates remained in physical possession over the land, as was existing prior to the scheme of consolidation passed in the year 1978. The change was only effected on paper, and, the settled physical possession was not disturbed.

5. Regarding the consolidation, there arose multiple litigation's, which went upto Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court on Civil Appeal No.1281 of 1980, titled as "Rattan Lal and others v. The Additional Director & others", passed thereons, an order dated 12.03.1992, order whereof becomes extracted hereinafter. A reading of the hereinafter extracted order discloses that the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana, erred in dismissing the petition of the appellants under Section 42 of the Act of 1948, as time barred, and, the High Court also erred in dismissing the writ petition filed on behalf of those opposing the scheme of consolidation in limine. However, on account of the fact that the consolidation relates to the year 1978, and the order was passed in the year 1992, thereby the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the inter se rivalries between the right holders could be settled in the Appellate and Revisional stages under Section 21 of the Act of 1948.

"Heard learned counsel. We are of the view that even though the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana was in error in dismissing the petition of the appellants under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 as time-barred, and the High Court too was in error in dismissing their Writ Petition in limine, and that too with regard to the challenge of the Scheme, still we felt that at this distance of time, we should not upset the order under appeal so as to put the Scheme of Consolidation as a whole in jeopardy. It appears that the appellants besides had also challenged the re-partition based on the working out of the Scheme and the challenge to re-partition too has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellants states that possessions after re-partition have not wholly changed. Be that as it may, when the scheme has been brought into force and possessions have changed on account of re-partition, inter se rivalries between the right holders can very well be settled in the Appellate and Revisional stages under Sec