GRAM PANCHAYAT, NAWAN KILLA Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Gram Panchayat is aggrieved by the order dated March 7, 1996 by which an application under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 6 was allowed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings. It was held that during consolidation a pro-rata cut was imposed to provide land for use for common purposes. After the need for common purposes had been fulfilled, the remaining land was described as 'Jumla Malkan Wah Digar Hakdaran Arazi Hasab Rasad' in the revenue record. It had to be distributed amongst the right-holders according to their respective shares. Consequently, directions were given that the Consolidation Officer shall hear all the interested persons and partition the land in accordance with law. In pursuance to these directions the Consolidation Officer passed the order dated April 30, 1997 by which different right-holders were allotted land according to their entitlement. The petitioner prays that the order dated March 7, 1996 passed by the Additional Director be set aside.

(2.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5. The claim made by the petitioner has been controverted. It has been inter-alia averred that the land belongs to the village Proprietary body. It was described as 'Jumla Malkan Wah Digar Hakdaran Arazi Hasab Rasad'. That being the position, the members of the Proprietary body were entitled to their shares. The action of the competent authority in passing the order is legal and valid. The respondents pray that the writ petition be dismissed.

(3.) THE solitary contention raised by Mr. Baljinder Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the respondents had approached the Additional Director after an inordinately long delay. Thus, their petition under Section 42 of the Act should have been dismissed on that ground alone. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat, Kakran v. Additional Director of Consolidation and another, 1997(2) PLJ 375 : 1997(4) RCR(Civil) 498 (SC). The claim made on behalf of the petitioner has been controverted by the learned counsel for the respondents.