IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on :-21.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement:-26.082025 Ishwar Singh @ Ishwar Saini … Petitioner Versus Surender Singh and Others ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Argued by :-

Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Veer Imaan Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 5.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .

1. The petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 28.02.2022 (Annexure P-11), whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’), seeking rejection of the plaint, was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal. The petitioner contends that the said order suffers from material irregularity and legal infirmity, and therefore warrants interference by this Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction.

2. Brief facts of the case are that consolidation proceedings pertaining to three villages namely Keharwali, Amritpur Kala, Amritpur Khurd of District Karnal on land measuring 16660 Bigha 1 Biswas was notified in 1965 and Scheme was prepared on 29.11.1966, the same was assailed in CWP-756-1967 and it was directed vide order dated 29.01.1968 to avail alternative remedy. On 18.08.1970 Director Consolidation quash the Scheme qua partition of “Burdgi-Barmmgdmi” under Section 42 East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act’). Some land owners preferred Civil Writ Petition No.3193 of 1986, which was decided on 10.08.1987 with direction to partition the land in question among the co-shares as per the terms and conditions of ‘shart wazib ul arz’ Consolidation Officer, Karnal published the amended Consolidation Scheme on 08.02.1995, which was accepted by Settlement Officer (Conslidation, Rohtak), on 05.05.1995 and partition scheme was prepared on 22.05.1998. The same was challenged by some right holders vide petition under Section 42 of the Act. The same was dismissed and the order was assailed in writ petition No.18310 of 1998, writ petition was also dismissed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the Consolidation Scheme on 06.09.2005. Plaintiff and others preferred complaints against partition dated 22.05.1988 before the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal. A Committee of five Senior Revenue Officers was constituted. Committee submitted Report No.611 on 24.12.2015 and it was found that there was illegalities, misuse of power and fraud committed by Revenue Authorities while effecting partition. Consolidation staff with motive to give benefit to their own people after taking gratification allotted more land than entitled to number of people and the plaintiffs were not given their due share. They were allotted less than their actual entitlement. Plaintiffs filed suit challenging the Settlement Scheme dated 22.05.1988 on the grounds of illegality and fraud committed by staff of defendant No.1 and sought declaration for declaring the Partition Scheme as illegal, null-&-void and also sought relief of permanent injunction restraining defendants from giving effect to illegal and effective partition and for mandatory injunction for issuing directions to defendant No.1 to prepare fresh Settlement Scheme as per Inquiry Report dated 24.12.2015.

3. Petitioner, who was not initial party to the suit moved an application and got himself impleaded and thereafter moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint on the grounds that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit in view of the provisions 44 of the Act and the plaintiff has no cause of action, locus-standi to maintain the present suit.

4. Application was contested by the respondents/plaintiffs by filing a written reply