GRAM PANCHAYAT VILLAGE KANONDA TEHSIL BAHADURGARH DISTRICT ROHTAK Vs. DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS HARYANA CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is from the Judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 21-9-1979 in Civil Writ Petition No. 2247 of 1979 allowing the petition and setting aside the order of the Director, Consolidation of Holdings dated 8-2-1979.

(2.) The appellant Gram Panchayat, hereinafter referred to at the 'Panchayat', was the onwer of 1200 Bighas of land in village Kanonda, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Rohtak. A Scheme of Consolidation of Holdings, hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme', of the village was confirmed on 15-1-1974 under Section 20 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The. Panchayat, therefore, moved an application under Section 42 of the Act on 20-9-1977 for setting aside the Scheme, objecting to the utilisation of the land of value of -/ 2/ - (two annas) and allotments made to the other right holders for their benefit. On 24-1-1979 a Mushtehri Mundadi was made for information of all the villagers concerned, but the right-holders were absent and ex parte proceedings were taken against them. The Panchayat's case was that under the said Scheme the Panchayat land was consolidated, repartitioned and allotted to persons who did not have any right to hold the land. Besides, the land of Dharat containing two wells and a big house being religious place of worship was also partitioned under the Scheme and consequently the Panchayat has been reduced to a landless person, financially weakened and rendered incapable of rendering service in the village.

(3.) After hearing the parties the Director in his order dated 8-2-1979 observed that it was evident from the perusal of the record that the Scheme of Consolidation of the village was confirmed on 15-1-1974 whereas the application had been filed on 20-9-1977 and as such the application had been filed too late. After the expiry of six months period the application was time barred. However, he said in his order: