SURAJ MAL Vs. MANOHAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of L.P. A. No. 271 of 1972, R.S. A. 92-D of 1966 and R.S.A. 93-D of 1961 is a common question of law arises in all the three cases. In order, however, to appreciate the question of law it is first necessary to briefly notice the facts of each case.

(2.) L.P. A. 27 of 1972 comes before us on a certificate given by a learned Single Judge of this court under Clause X of the Letters Patent while accepting R.S.A.264-D of 1962. The second appeal in this case was referred against concurrent judgments of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court dismissing the plaintiff's suit for declaration that the order dated 8th April, 1960 of the Chief Commissioner allotting land in village Bhorgarh, Delhi worth Rs. 7.09 out of the plaintiff's holding allocated to him in consolidation proceedings in village Bhorgarh was ultra vires, illegal, without jurisdiction, void and not binding on the plaintiff and also for permanent injunction against the defendants in the suit, who were previously non-occupancy tenants under the plaintiff, restraining them from taking possession of any land of the plaintiff in pursuance of the said order of the Chief Commissioner. Consolidation proceedings under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, herein after referred to as the Consolidation Act, were ordered in 1952. A scheme of consolidation of holdings was prepared but by an order passed in 1954 the Chief Commissioner ordered fresh revaluation of the land in the village. Pending revaluation, it seems, repartition had started in June, 1954. The repartition proposals themselves were published in December, 1954, and were finalised without there being any objections from the defendants. After the new holdings were allotted, it seems, the defendants first moved the Consolidation officer for getting possession of land in lieu of their previous tenancies but the application was rejected in 1957. An appeal to the Settlement Officer was also dismissed. On a further appeal/revision to the Chief Commissioner the impugned order dated 8th April, 1960, was passed. The plaintiff in this case was Manohar Lal while the defendant-tenants were Suraj Mal and Khubi.

(3.) In suits out of which R.S.A.92-D of 1966 and R.S.A. 93-D of 1966 arose the plaintiff land owner was Chandgi while the tenants were respectively Jag Ram and Amar Siagh. Both these suits were disposed of by the trial Court by a common judgment. The village in which the consolidation proceedings were ordered was Bawana. In this village consolidation proceeding- had started in 1952 but on 6th August, 1954 the Chief Commissioner had set aside the original scheme of partition and fresh scheme wa? ordered to be prepared. On 4th February, 1955, the scheme was drawn up and announced by the Consolidation officer. On 28th May, 1955, the scheme was confirmed by the Settlement offices' and on 27th June. 1955, the repartition, proposals were announced. Thereafter repartition was carried out and it was alleged by the plaintiff that the scheme came into force on 29th July, 1955. The defendant-tenants did not feature either in the draft scheme or the final scheme or even in the repartition proposals nor had they filed any objections about their names not being found therein. Jag Ram moved an application on 17th December, 1959 to the consolidation officer for being put into possession of land in lieu of his former tenancy. On 28th April, 1960 the Consolidation officer accepted this applica.tion by an order purported to have been passed under section 26 of the Consolidation Act, (Exhibit P.13). Amar Singhmoveda similar application to the Consolidation officer on 23rd March, 1959 and his application was also similarly'accepted by an order of the Consolida tion officer dated 28th April, 1960 (Exhibit P. 12). It seems that both Jag Ram and Amar Singh had first approached the Revenue Assistant, Delhi, under Section 18 (2) of the Delhi land Reforms Act but the Revenue Assistant had passed an order to the effect that inasmuch as consolidation was taking place in this village the applicants should approach the Consolidation officer. Appeals filed to the Additional Collector from the order of the Revenue Assistant had also been dismissed. The question of law that arises thus in all the three cases is whether cither the Chief Commissioner, Delhi (now the Lt. Governor) or the Consolidation officer acted within jurisidiction in ordering land being given to the non-occupancy tenants at the time when the respective orders were passed in favour of the three non-occupancy tenants.