AJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Punjab High Court dismissing a petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying that the scheme of consolidation of village Ropalon, Tehsil Samrola, District Ludhiana, be quashed. The scheme which was sought to be quashed was made under the provisions of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act. 1948 hereinafter referred to as the Acct. On May 2, 1961, a notification was issued under S. 14 (I) of the Act, which provided for a declaration of the intention of the State Government to make a scheme for the consolidation of holdings in the estates. Section 14(2) of the Act provides for the appointment of a Consolidation Officer and the preparation of a scheme by him. One Gurkirpal Singh, purporting to act as the Consolidation Officer, prepared a draft scheme and published it on November 8, 1961, under S. 19 (1) of the Act. On January 6, 1962, or January 16, 1962, the scheme was confirmed by the Settlement Officer under S. 20 (3) of the Act. After the confirmation, the Consolidation Officer after obtaining the advice of the landlords of the estate carried out repartition under S. 21 (1) and the boundaries of the holdings as demarcated were published in the prescribed manner in the estate on February 21, 1962. It appears that the Punjab High Court granted a stay order and no further proceedings under the Act could be taken. No possession has been transferred pursuant to the repartition. On May 11, 1962, a notification was published in the Gazette, purporting to appoint Shri Gurkirpal Singh as Consolidation Officer in respect of the estate Ropalon with effect from November 4, 1961. On March 10, 1965, Ajit Singh, appellant before us, filed the petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. In the High Court as before us, it was urged on behalf of the appellant that :

(2.) The High Court held that although there could be no retrospective appointment of a Consolidation Officer, the objection could not be sustained because of laches of the appellant. On the second point, the High Court held that the second proviso to Article 31-A (1) was prospective and not retrospective and did not affect the scheme in question as the rights under the scheme became vested as soon as the scheme was sanctioned by the Settlement Officer. The High Court also expressed a tentative view that the reservation of lands for common purposes in accordance with the scheme and, the Act did not amount to "acquisition" within the contemplation of the record proviso to Article 31-A (1). The High Court accordingly dismissed the petition.

(3.) Mr. B. R. L. Iyenger, the learned counsel for the appellant, has urged the following points before us :