KANSHI RAM Vs. CONSOLIDATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by Consolidation Officer's order of 25th June, 1998 (Annexure P-2), petitioner had preferred a Revision Petition to Financial Commissioner which stands dismissed vide impugned order of 24th August, 2007 (Annexure P-5), upholding withdrawal of agricultural land to the extent of 3 bighas each from Khasra No.25/10 and 109/3 in the Revenue Estate of Village Mundka, Delhi from the petitioner and it being allotted to Chandgi Ram & others.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner impugns order of 24th August, 2007 (Annexure P-5) as well as order of 25th June, 1998 (Annexure P-2) of the Consolidation Officer on the ground that the Consolidation Officer has no jurisdiction to exercise the power under Section 43A of East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 and that there was no deficiency in the holding of respondent No. 2 who is the legal heir of Chandgi Ram as the deficiency so found in the holding of second respondent was already made good by the Consolidation Officer vide order of 17th May, 1990 (Annexure P-4). According to petitioner's counsel, the provision which can be invoked to make the deficiency good is Section 36 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 and the resort to Section 43A of the aforesaid Act by the Consolidation Officer is misdirected. It was vehemently argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that a wrong calculation has been done to indicate excess land in the holding of the petitioner whereas there is no excess land in the petitioner's holding and so the orders impugned herein deserve to be quashed.

(3.) UPON considering the submissions advanced and on perusal of the impugned orders, this Court finds that petitioner's counsel is not right in submitting that Consolidation Officer lacks jurisdiction to make up the deficiency in the land holdings during the currency of the Consolidation Scheme by invoking Section 43A of East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 as this submission runs counter to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.1734/2006, Shri Leo Puri vs. Consolidation Officer & Ors, rendered on 30th September, 2008, declaring that the Consolidation Officer is fully competent to rectify a mistake resulting in deficiency in holdings when the scheme is in operation by resort to Section 43A of the aforesaid Act, as such mistakes are capable of correction by Consolidation Officer by virtue of the power conferred by the aforesaid provision.