HAR NARAIN Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Har Narain has filed this writ petition for quashing and setting aside the order dated April 14, 1975, passed by the Consolidation Officer-Respondent No. 4, appellant order dated August .18, 1975, made by the Settlement Officer- Respondent No. 3, order dated December 6, 1975, passed by the Additional Collector-Respondent No. 2 and the order dated September 3, 1976, made in revision by the Financial Commissioner- Respondent No. 1.

(2.) Facts, in brief, are that the consolidation of land holdings was carried out at village Kangan Heri in accordance with the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. According to the petitioner, the consolidation proceedings were completed and the petitioner was allotted Kila Nos. 23 & 24 of Rectangle No. 30 in repartition proceedings and he was given possession of the same in the year 1971 itself. He has further alleged that he has installed a tubewell in Kila No. 24. It was averred that the consolidation proceedings were to end after the possessions had been delivered and no objections were filed by anyone including respondent No. 5-Gaon Sabha, Village Kangan Heri, with regard to the allotment of aforesaid land to the petitioner. It is alleged that somewhere In the first week of May 1975, the petitioner came to know that the Consolidation Officer-Respondent No. 4 had made an order on April 14, 1975, without giving any notice to the petitioner by which he cancelled the allotment of Kila Nos. 23 & 24 in favour of the petitioner and in lieu of the same he allotted land comprises in Kila Nos. 62/12/2/1, 18/2 and 19. He has pleaded that in view of this order the holdings of the petitioner have been fragmented and scattered and he had been deprived the facility of the tubewell installed by him in Kila No. 24. He has alleged that there is no provision under the aforesaid Act which empowered the Consolidation Officer to make the impugned order after the scheme of the consolida- tion has been completed and' proceedings have been closed. The petitioner, being aggrieved of the aforesaid impugned order of the Consolidation Officer, had preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer-Respondent No. 3 on August 18, 1975, and he preferred the second appeal which was dismissed by the Additional Collector-Respondent No. 2 vida order dated December 6, 1975 and he filed a revision to Respondent No. 1-Financial Commissioner, who dismissed the same vide order dated September 3, 1976. The petitioner has referred to the provisions of Section 21 of the aforesaid Act in order to support his case that there was no jurisdiction or power in the Consolidation Officer to re-open the issue after allotments in repartition proceedings have been made and possessions have been delivered.

(3.) On behalf of respondents I to 4, the Consolidation Officer-Respondent No. 4 has filed the affidavit. He has mentioned that Kila Nos. 23 & 24 of Rectangle No. 30 were reserved for common purposes like tethering of the cattle in the consolidation scheme and the Consolidation Officer has no jurisdiction or power to allot the said land to anyone. It is averred that the allotment made by the Consolidation Officer of the aforesaid unallotable land meant for common purposes of the villagers was without jurisdiction and hence a nullity in law and the said allotment did not confer any rights on the petitioner and the Consolidation Officer was entitled to correct his wrong order in that respect. It was admitted in this affidavit by the Consolidation Officer that the aforesaid land was, of course, allotted to the petitioner by mistake and no objections had been filed at any time by anyone and this mistake came to be noticed only when the records were being scrutinised for consignment to the record room and the Consolidation Officer was duty bound to correct the mistake suo motu. Gaon Sabha through its Pradhan-Rati Ram has filed the counter taking almost similar pleas.