In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
C.W.P. No.9827 of 2009
.....
Date of decision:7.7.2009
Shavinder Singh
.....Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab and others
.....Respondents
....
Present: Mr. Vikas Mehsempuri, Advocate for the petitioner.
.....
S.S. Saron, J.
The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 12.9.2007
(Annexure-P.7) passed by the Director, Land Records, Punjab, Jalandhar,
exercising the powers of State Government under the East Punjab
(Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (`Consolidation
Act’ – for short), whereby it has been held that the State Government had no
power to re-partition the `Shamilat Deh’ land.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that mutation
(Annexure-P.1) was wrongly sanctioned on 25.12.1956 in favour of the
Gram Panchayat, Chungara. The land was `Shamilat Pati Hasab Hisam
Jaddi’ and in the column of cultivation, it is recorded as under the
possession of owners. It is further contended that in terms of Consolidation
Scheme (Annexure-P.2) which was sanctioned in pursuance of notification
dated 21.11.1958 an area of 783-7 Bighas Khewat has wrongly been
mentioned as `Shamilat Deh’ which has been transferred in the name of
Gram Panchayat. It has been recorded that the said area would be kept
C.W.P. No.9827 of 2009
[2]
reserved for common purposes and if the area for common purposes was of
less value then the remaining area would be given to the Gram Panchayat as
per its entitlement. Besides, if the area for common purposes would be of
less value than the previous area of Gram Panchayat, deficiency would be
made good from all the proprietors according to their `Hasab Rasad’
standard area and a separate Khewat of the area so recovered would be
settled. Therefore, it is submitted that the Director, Land Records, Punjab
failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by declining to re-partition the
`Shamilat Deh’ land.
After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may
be noticed that the primary grievance of the petitioner is against the order of
the Director, Land Records, exercising the powers of the State Government
under Section 42-A of the Consolidation Act whereby the Director has held
that in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Civil Appeal No.2066 of
1996 titled Gram Panchayat, Nurpur v. State of Punjab, (1998) 8 SCC 672
the Director Consolidation has no authority to go into the question whether
the land in dispute is Shamilat Deh or not. This question could only be
decided by the authorities under the Punjab Village Common Lands
(Regulation) Act, 1961 (`Regulation Act’ – for short). Indeed in the said
case it was held by the Supreme Court that the Additional Director
Consolidation had no jurisdiction to go into the question whether land in
dispute was `Shamilat Deh’ and the said question could only be decided
under the aforesaid Regulation Act. In Gram Panchayat Village Kot Mana
v. Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, (1998) 9 SCC 269 also it
was held by the Supreme Court that after enforcement of the Regulation
Act, question of ownership of the land can only be decided by the Collector
C.W.P. No.9827 of 2009
[3]
under Section 11 thereof. It was held that the contention that the area being
Bachat area was distributed amongst the right holders can be raised before
the Collector. Reliance was placed on the case of Gram Panchayat Village
Sidh v. Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, Civil Appeal
No.14786 of 1996 decided on 21.11.1996.
In the scheme of the Regulation Act the Collector under the
Regulation Act is the competent authority to determine whether the land is
`Shamilat Deh’ or not. The Consolidation Authority has no jurisdiction to
consider the question whether the land is `Shamilat Deh’ or not.
Therefore, in case the petitioner has any grievance as regards
the nature of land he is liable to approach the Collector under the
Regulation Act. There is no error of jurisdiction in the order passed by the
Director, Land Records, exercising the powers of the State Government, in
holding that he has no jurisdiction to re-partition the area of the `Shamilat
Deh’.
In the circumstances, there is no merit in this petition and the
same is accordingly dismissed.
July 7, 2009. (S.S. Saron)
Judge
*hsp*
NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes