HOSHIAR SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition was filed on 11.1.1979 questioning the orders dated 23.3.1978 of the Consolidation Officer, the Order dated 11.7.1978 of the Settlement Officer and the Order dated 20.11.1978 passed by the Additional Collector. The last mentioned order rejected the appeal filed by the Petitioner, against the Order dated 11.7.1978 of the Settlement Officer under Section 24(i) of the East Punjab Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 ('Act').

(2.) THE proceedings emanate from the scheme of the consolidation of the lands in village Sanoth in Delhi. After the scheme was finalised, during the repartition proceedings under Section 21(1) of the Act, while deciding the claim of one Shri Pratap Singh, certain changes were made in the extent and location of lands allotted to other persons including the Petitioner herein. Land to the extent of 3 bighas and 9 bids was in Kila No. 40/6 was withdrawn and allotted to Respondent No. 4 herein and in lieu thereof certain other land measuring 2 bighas and 18 bids was was allotted to the present Petitioner. Aggrieved by this order, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer under Section 21(3) of the Act. The contention of the Petitioner was that kila No. 40/6 was entirely of the pre -consolidation area of the Petitioner and he accordingly had a preferential right to it. He claimed that he had a boring in this land from which he used to draw water with the help of a tractor and, Therefore, the land should not have been withdrawn from him. According to him, the Respondent No. 4 had no centre at that place. He claimed that the deficiency in the holding allotted to him should be made good by shifting the allotment made to Respondent No. 4 herein to an area where Respondent No. 4 and his brothers had their first centre.

(3.) THE Settlement Officer rejected the petitioner's appeal by an order dated 11.7.1978. The Settlement Officer found that there was no tube -well of the appellant in kila No. 40/6. The Settlement Officer accepted the submission of the Respondent No. 4 that if the land allotted to the Petitioner (which was between the earlier land and the khalasi), was not allotted to him but kept in the khata of the Gaon Sabha, and the Petitioner was allotted land contiguous to the said land, then the Petitioner would encroach upon the Gaon Sabha land. The Settlement Officer further ordered that the boring could be removed by the Petitioner or, in the alternative, he could be compensated for the same.