JUDGMENT
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
1. A very disturbing trend which needs to be deprecated be noted at the outset. On 20.5.2004, order was passed in presence of counsel for the petitioners directing:
WP(C) NO. 41/1987
‘Respondent No.1 is a formal party and none has put in appearance for respondent No.15. A complete set of paper book be supplied to learned counsel for respondent No.2 & 3.
List in the category of After Notice Misc. Matters on 19.8.2004 for final disposal.”
2. On 19.8.2004, matter was shown in the cause list but under the caption:
‘For Directions:’
3. When matter was called, counsel for respondents 4 to 14 stated that his clients were not pressing any claim to the land in dispute being the land comprised in killa no.257 in Village Karala. Land being a Village pond had to be preserved as a pond in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported as 2001 (4) SCALE 670, Hinch Lal Tiwari Vs. Kamla Devi & Ors. So stating and completing his submission within less than a minute, counsel resumed his seat. Thereafter, Sh.Statinder Singh opened arguments for the petitioners. He addressed arguments for about 20 minutes. His main thrust was that respondents 4 to 15 had no locus standi to file the revision petition before the Financial Commissioner which resulted in the impugned order dated 11.11.1986 being passed. He argued that these respondents were encroachers and were not only not entitled to any land in the village but could not question any allotment to any land owner.
4. Noticing the line of argument adopted by counsel for the petitioners, this court drew counsels attention to the observations of the Supreme court in Hinch Lal Tiwari’s judgment, where land falling in a village pond was allotted to the respondents therein. It was held:-
13. It is important to note that material resources of the community like forests, tanks, ponds, hillock, mountain etc. are nature’s bounty. They maintain delicate ecological balance. They need to be protected for a proper and healthy environment which enable people to enjoy a quality of life which is essence of the guaranteed right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The government, including revenue authorities, i.e. respondents 11 to 13, having noticed that a pond is falling in disuse, should have bestowed their attention to develop the same which would, on one land, have prevented ecological disaster and on the other provided better environment for the benefit of public at large. Such vigil is the best protection against knavish attempts to seek allotment in non-abadi sites.
14. For the afore-mentioned reasons, we set aside the order of the High Court, restore the order of the Additional Collector dated February 25, 1999 confirmed by the Commissioner on March 12, 1999. Consequently, respondents 1 to 10 shall vacate the land, which was allotted to them, within six months from today. They will, however, be permitted to take away the material of the houses which they have constructed on the said land. If respondents 1 to 10 do not vacate the land within the said period the official respondents i.e. respondents 11 to 13 shall demolish the construction and get possession of the said land in accordance with law. The State including respondents 11 to 13 shall restore the pond, develop and maintain the same as a recreational spot which will undoubtedly be in the best interest of the villagers. Further it will also help in maintaining ecological balance and protecting environment in regard to which this Court has repeatedly expressed its concern. Such measures must begin at the grass-root level if they were to become the nation’s pride.”
5. Land comprised in killa No.257 in village Karala admittedly being a village pond and vested in the Gaon Sabha was withdrawn from the Gaon Sabha during consolidation proceedings and allotted to the petitioners. This allotment stands cancelled by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 11.11.1986, which order stands impugned in the present proceedings.
6. Having no answer in light of the decision in Hinch Lal Tiwari’s case, counsel for the petitioner after addressing for 20 minutes stated that since matter was shown for directions, he was not ready for arguments. At that stage, attention of the counsel was drawn to the order dated 20.5.2004, passed in his presence. Matter pertains to the year 1987. An interim injunction has enured in the matter for 17 years in favor of the petitioners. Adjournment was refused. Counsel stated that he be permitted to file written submissions. Two weeks time was sought and was granted. Oral hearing was closed. Matter was reserved for judgment.
7. On 31.8.2004, counsel for the petitioner handed over to the court master the written submissions. The submissions were accompanied with a copy of an application under Section 151 C.P.C. stated to be filed in the registry.
8. Application aforenoted was registered by the registry as CM No. 10344/2004. It was listed on 6.9.2004. Rehearing was sought on the ground that counsel was not heard on 19.8.2004. I had dismissed the said CM.
9. Consolidation commenced in Village Karala with the issuance of a notification under Section 14(1) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention and Fragmentation) Act, 1948 hereinafter referred to as the Consolidation Act.
10. As per the averments made in the petition, 10411 bigha and 8 biswa of land valued from 2 annas to Re.1 was to be repartitioned. Out of this land, 168 bigha 2 biswa was within the abadi area. 196 bigha and 15 biswa was vested in the custodian. 1222 bigha and 11 biswa of land was vested in the Gaon Sabha, out of which 186 bigha was under encroachment. As per the averments made in the petition, encroachers were landless persons and, therefore, at the time when the scheme for repartition was prepared it was decided that 2 biswa or 2.5 biswa residential plots would be allotted to these persons.
11. As per the petitioner, 10046 bigha and 11 biswa of land was available for consolidation.
12. Respondents 4 to 14 were allotted a residential plot admeasuring 2 biswa to 2.5 biswa. These 2 or 2.5 biswa plots were in khasra Nos. 631, 327, 405, 481, 386, 283, 284, 352 and 356.
13. As far as the petitioners were concerned, it is stated that petitioner No.1 along with his brothers and one Kapoor Singh S/O. Nanhey were allotted plot Nos. 1161 and 1162 under the Phirni but possession thereof was not granted. Possession of these plots was given to one Ram Singh, Madan Singh and Nafe Singh, sons of Chandgi Ram. As far as petitioners 2 to 4 were concerned it is stated in the writ petition that they had applied for residential plots within the phirni. They were allotted plots but of a lesser area.
14. Since petitioner No.1, his brothers and Kapoor Singh were not given possession of the plots allotted, they filed a revision petition under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act before the Financial Commissioner. Revision Petition was registered as case No.290/83-CA. Vide order dated 2.2.1984 the revision petition was disposed of with a direction that allotment be made to petitioner no.1, his brother and Kapoor Singh within the phirni. Matter was remanded to the consolidation officer.
15. According to the petitioner No.1, since plot Nos. 1161 and 1162 had already been constructed upon by the persons to whom possession was given, alternative land had to be found for said petitioner, his brothers and Kapoor Singh. As regards petitioners 2 and 4 it is stated that since what was allotted to them was deficient, deficiency had to be made up.
16. As per the petitioners, in the meanwhile Gaon Sabha passed a resolution that khasra No.257 which was a Johar being environmently a health hazard as it contained stagnant water unfit to be used even by the cattle be reclaimed and utilized for making good deficiencies of land. As per the petitioners, Gaon Sabha passed the resolution to protect the Johar which was coming under unauthorised encroachment.
17. At the remanded proceedings, the consolidation officer vide order dated 14.5.1984 allotted land to the petitioners which included land comprised in khasra Nos. 257.
18. At this stage, respondents 4 to 14 filed a revision against the order dated 14.5.1984 passed by the Consolidation Officer. Grievance in the said revision petition, which was registered as Case No.96/86-CA, was against allotment of land comprised in khasra No.257 to the petitioners. Revision petition aforesaid was disposed of by the learned Financial Commissioner vide order dated 11.11.1986.
19. Inter alia, the learned Financial Commissioner held:-
(a) It is an admitted fact that the land of kila No.257 is a Johar.
(b) Though it is not possible to accept the version of the Pradhan yet the basic point is whether the allotment made by the learned Consolidation Officer is correct or not irrespective of the plea of the respondents that the petitioners have no locus standi since it is within the competence of authority under Section 42 of the Act to what the interest of the persons on common land.
20. Quashing the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, matter was remanded with the following direction:-
“Case is remanded to the learned consolidation officer with the directions that first he should ascertain from the records whether actually there is excess allotment or not. Construction raised on a piece of land by Shri Ajit Singh who is in active service should be allowed to prevail whereas excess after adding this area in his demand should be taken out. Case as observed above is remitted to the learned consolidation officer for thorough probe and for the purpose of making up the deficiency of Shri Balbir Singh respondent No.1 as pointed out by the consolidation officer and further excess from respondents be withdrawn and adjustment if considered to be made among the respondents according to the picture in the records so far as plotted area is concerned be done with a view to avoid future litigation.”
21. Petitioners have challenged the said order dated 11.11.1986 passed by the Financial Commissioner in Case No.96/1986-CA.
22. Learned counsel for the petitioner Satinder Singh at the oral hearing and even in the written submissions filed contended that respondents 4 to 14 were themselves encroachers on land and therefore had no locus standi to file the revision petition before the Financial Commissioner. Justifying allotment of land comprised in khasra No.257, counsel contended that Johar had become a health hazard and, therefore, Gaon Sabha was justified in passing a resolution that it be reclaimed by filling up the depression. This land was, therefore, available for allotment at the time of repartition. Counsel argued that respondents 4 to 14 had illegally constructed houses on land adjacent to khasra no.257 much prior to the consolidation proceedings and to buy peace said land was allotted to respondents 4 to 14. Thus, these respondents could not question either the consolidation scheme or any order passed there under.
23. Justifying allotment of land by the Consolidation Officer as per the order dated 14.5.1984, counsel contended that petitioners were admittedly not allotted land within the Phirni as per their entitlement and, therefore, said claim was required to be satisfied, which was done by the said order.
24. Counsel contended that the Financial Commission was not entitled to reconsider a matter pertaining to the scheme after people were put in possession of the land at repartition. Counsel further contended that petitioners had spent money to fill up the pond with earth and had constructed houses thereon.
25. As noted by me in para 3 and 4 of my judgment above, at the hearing, repeatedly counsel for the petitioner was required to answer to this court as to what would be the right of the petitioners in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Hinch Lal Tiwari’s case. At the oral hearing, there was no response. Even in the written submissions filed, I find not even a reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in Hinch Lal Tiwari’s case. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to distinguish the said judgment. Indeed, the judgment of the Supreme court applies on all fours.
26. I have noted above paras 13 and 14 of the decision of the Supreme Court in Hinch Lal Tiwari’s case. Their Lordships of the Supreme court had emphasized the importance of protection of village ponds to maintain ecological balance. Indeed, as noted by the Supreme Court, if one has to prevent ecological disaster and better environment has to be secured, community resources like forests, tanks, ponds, hillocks etc. have to be preserved as they are natures bounty.
27. I may note that respondents before the Supreme Court had sought to justify their possession by alleging that they had constructed houses on the land allotted, which, as in the present case was the site of village pond.
28. All or any resident of a village could have locus standi to bring it in the notice of the revisional authority that repartition is being effected in a manner which is prejudicial to their interest. Matter of environment concerns all. That respondents 4 to 14 could not lay any claim to the land in question, in that, could not seek allotment of the land in their favor is inconsequential. Certainly, said respondents could bring to the notice of the learned Financial Commissioner that site of the village pond was being allotted to third parties for private use.
29. I find no merit in the writ petition. The rule is discharged. Writ petition is dismissed.