RAM SARUP Vs. NATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner claims a quashing order in respect of an order of the Financial Commissioner, dated 13-7-1981, under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1949 (hereafter called "the Act").

(2.) The petitioners were bhumidars of pre-consolidation khasra numbers 196 min measuring 9 bighas 8 biswas situated in revenue estate village Pandwala Kalan. During consolidation proceedings in the Village they were allotted post-consolidation Killa Nos. 43/6, 7 and 14 in lieu of their pre-consolidation holdings. The petitioners had a dispute with the first two respondents regarding possession of pre-consolidation khasra number 196 min, which had been shown as disputed in the khasra girdawari. Previously, they had instituted eviction proceedings against the first two respondents, which was decreed. This was occasioned by the respondents being shown as occupying the lands, till 1963. The petitioners later instituted a civil suit for permanent injunction against the said respondents, claiming that the latter had trespassed on the lands, to disturb their possession. The suit was decreed by the Sub Judge, Delhi on 25.8.1969. An appeal filed by the respondents against that judgment and decree was dismissed by the Appellate Court by judgment and order dated 20.3.1970. Consolidation proceedings in village Pindwala Kalan commenced in 1970.

(3.) Though the post-consolidation khasra numbers had been allotted to the petitioners in lieu of their pre-consolidation holdings, possession of the newly allotted land was not handed over to them by the consolidation authorities; it was given to the respondents. Consequently they moved an application before the Consolidation Officer for possession of the post-consolidation killas. Notice of the application was issued to the respondents who objected to delivery of possession of the lands. They resisted on the grounds that since they (respondents) had been in possession of pre-consolidation khasra numbers 196 min immediately prior to the commencement of consolidation proceedings in the village, they were correctly put in possession of the post-consolidation land. Therefore, they were entitled to retain possession of the lands. Since the factum of possession over the pre-consolidation land at the time immediately prior to the commencement of the consolidation proceedings in the village was in controversy between the parties, the Consolidation Officer called upon both of them to lead evidence in support of their respective claims.