CWP No.3709 of 1984 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CWP No.3709 of 1984
Date of Decision: 19.8.2008
Gram Panchayat Village Panvan Tehsil
and Distt. Sangrur .....Petitioner
Vs.
The Additional Director, Consolidation
and Holdings, Punjab, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents
....
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA
****
Present : Mr. Arun Palli, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Jai Bhagwan,Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.N.S. Pawar, Addl.A.G. Punjab for respondents no.1 and 2.
Mr.S.D. Sharma, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Bindu Goel, Advocate
for the respondents no.3 to 43.
RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral)
The petitioner, Gram Panchayat, prays for the issuance of a writ
in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the order dated 12.7.1984, passed
by respondent no.1, namely; the Additional Director, Consolidation and
Holdings, Punjab, Chandigarh.
More than three decades after consolidation proceedings
concluded and without filing any appeal against the proceedings of
repartition, the respondents, approached the Additional Director,
Consolidation, under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation
and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the
`Consolidation Act’), with a prayer that as their land had been wrongly
reflected as Shamlat Deh during the process of repartition, this error be
CWP No.3709 of 1984 2
rectified. The Additional Director, Consolidation vide order dated
12.7.1984 held that revenue authorities had no jurisdiction to alter the
ownership of the land to the name of the Gram Panchayat after
consolidation. Mutation No.338, sanctioned by the revenue authorities was,
therefore, set aside and the matter was remanded to the Consolidation
Officer to distribute land measuring 257 Bighas and 3 Biswas amongst the
right holders.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Director,
Consolidation, has no jurisdiction to set aside a mutation entered and
sanctioned by revenue authorities. The Additional Director, Consolidation
can only deal with matters, decided during the proceedings of
consolidation. It is further submitted that the Additional Director has no
jurisdiction to entertain and decide the question, whether land vests or does
not so vest in a Gram Panchayat. This question can only be decided by the
Collector, exercising powers under Section 11 of the Punjab Village
Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961. Reliance in this regard is placed
upon two judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as Gram
Panchayat Village Sidh, V. Additional Director, Consolidation of
Holdings, Punjab and others, 1997(1) PLJ 313 and Gram Panchayat,
Nurpur, V. State of Punjab and others, 1997(1) PLJ 268.
Counsel for the respondents, however, submits that the revenue
record, preceding consolidation, namely; the jamabandi for the year 1944-
45, records the respondents as owner in possession. An error by the
revenue authorities by pre-fixing the word “Shamlat” before their names
was rightly rectified by the Additional Director, Consolidation. It is
submitted that Section 42 of the Consolidation Act, empowers the
CWP No.3709 of 1984 3
Additional Director to correct any error in the scheme or in re partition
proceedings. As the impugned order does not suffer from any error of
jurisdiction or of law, the instant petition be dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned order.
Admittedly, the revenue authorities sanctioned Mutation
No.338 describing the land in dispute as Shamlat Deh. The Additional
Director, Consolidation, held that the revenue authorities could not alter the
revenue record, as sanctioned during consolidation proceedings and,
therefore, set aside this mutation.
It is no more in dispute, that it is no part of the jurisdiction of
the Additional Director, Consolidation, under Section 42 of the
Consolidation Act to entertain and decide any dispute, whether any land has
vested or has not so vested in a Gram Panchayat. Such a dispute can only
be decided by the Collector under Section 11 of the Punjab Village
Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961. Reference in this regard may be
made to judgements of the Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat
Village Sidh’s case and Gram Panchayat, Nurpur’s case (supra). The
mutation reflecting the Gram Panchayat as owner, could therefore, not
have been set aside by the Additional Director, Consolidation, in the
exercise of jurisdiction under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act. This
apart, Section 42 of the Consolidation Act does not empower, the
Additional Director, Consolidation, exercising jurisdiction under Section 42
of the Consolidation Act, to entertain any application, or to pass any orders
with respect to the legality of a mutation sanctioned by revenue authorities,
after consolidation. Section 42 of Consolidation Act, can only be invoked
CWP No.3709 of 1984 4
with respect to orders passed during consolidation proceedings. Mutation
No.338 was admittedly sanctioned by revenue authorities after conclusion
of consolidation proceeding. The Additional Director, Consolidation,
therefore, had no jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to the legality of
Mutation No.338, which was admittedly entered and sanctioned by revenue
authorities after consolidation proceedings concluded.
As the impugned order is null and void, the writ petition is
allowed and the order dated 12.7.1984 is set aside, leaving it open to the
respondents to seek adjudication as to the question of title, if any, in the
property in dispute by filing an appropriate application, before the
Collector concerned, in accordance with the provisions of Section 11 of the
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act. In case, such an
application is filed within two months, the Collector shall decide the
application within a period of six months from its filing. No costs.
19.8.2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE