IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH.

L.P.A. No. 1812 of 2011 ( O&M )

DATE OF DECISION : 27.09.2011

Ashwani Kumar

.... APPELLANT

Versus

Director, Land Records, Punjab, Jalandhar and others

..... RESPONDENTS

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR

Present:

Mr. Harsh Bunger, Advocate,

for the appellant.

Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate,

for the caveators/respondents No.5 to 8.

* * *

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J.

This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment

dated 14.9.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ

petition (CWP No. 8027 of 2005) filed by the appellant and his mother

Suraksha Devi (respondent No.14 herein) for setting aside the orders dated

8.10.1999, 28.2.2000, 31.5.2001 and 8.2.2005, passed by the Consolidation

Officer, Hoshiarpur; the Settlement Officer, Consolidation of Holdings,

Punjab, Jalandhar; the Assistant Director, Consolidation, Punjab, Jalandhar;

and the Director, Land Records, Punjab, Jalandhary, respectively, has been

dismissed, while observing as under :

LPA No. 1812 of 2011

-2-

“I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the

impugned orders and find no reason to hold in favour of the

petitioners. The petitioners grievance has been thoroughly

examined by the Consolidation Officer, the Settlement Officer,

the Assistant Director and the Director Land Records and

negatived. The Consolidation Officer has recorded a clear

finding that the petitioners were wrongly recorded as `Gair

Marusi' in Khasra No. 654, as Balak Ram alone should have

been shown as `Gair Marusi'. The jamabandi for the year 1973-

74 clearly records Balak Ram as `Gair Marusi' in Khasra no.

790/511 measuring 0-15 marlas. This entry has been recorded

in the Khatauni Paimaish and the Naksha Haqdarwar, but on

account of an error Prem Chand was shown to be a co-sharer in

Khasra No. 654 (0-12 marlas).

In view of the findings of fact recorded by consolidation

authorities and the absence of any error of jurisdiction or of

law, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.”

Learned counsel for the appellant has again disputed the

findings recorded by the authorities below to the effect that instead of 15

marlas of land, Balak Ram was in possession of 3 marlas of land as `Gair

Marusi'. However, it has not been disputed by him that in the jamabandi for

the year 1973-74, Balak Ram was recorded as `Gair Marusi' in khasra No.

790/511 measuring 0-15 marlas. It is not disputed that during the

consolidation proceedings, on the basis of the previous jamabandi, entry to

the effect that Balak Ram was in possession of khasra No. 790/511

measuring 0-15 marlas as `Gair Marusi' was entered in the record of

consolidation, but subsequently by mistake, in khasra No. 654 measuring 12

LPA No. 1812 of 2011

-3-

marlas, Prem Chand was shown as co-sharer. It is admitted position that old

khasra No. 790/511/2 was transformed into new Khasra Nos. 652, 653 and

654. After taking into consideration the revenue record, the consolidation

authorities granted 15 maralas of land to Balak Ram. In our opinion, the

learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition, while coming to

the conclusion that the consolidation authorities have recorded a pure

finding of fact.

No merits.

Dismissed.

( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )

JUDGE

September 27, 2011

( ARVIND KUMAR )

ndj

JUDGE