MUNNA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in the present writ petition is for setting aside of the order dated 01.06.1987 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jalandhar, vide which an ex-parte order was passed against the petitioner making the amendments in the consolidation records and quashing of the order dated 24.12.1987 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jalandhar, vide which a petition filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte order was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was the owner of the land in question as she had bought the same from one Sh. Dharam Singh, who in turn had purchased from the Central Government. As she did not have the possession of the land, she filed a suit for possession and for recovery of Rs. 3063.66 as mesne profits against respondents No. 3 to 7 who had forcibly took possession. The said suit was decided by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Sultanpur Lodhi vide a judgment and decree dated 16.05.1986 in favour of the petitioner declaring her to be the owner of the land and also entitled to possession thereof. Only one Sh. Baldev Singh (respondent No. 4 herein) preferred an appeal against the said decree which came to be decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Kapurthala on 26.11.1986 wherein both the parties, namely Baldev Singh and the petitioner, appeared and made a statement that a compromise has been entered into, according to which, Baldev Singh shall be entitled to retain possession of Khasra No. 24 measuring 8 Kanals up to the month of Harr and he will be entitled to cut the standing Barseen crop and thereafter the petitioner shall be entitled to get actual possession. The entire remaining land, in respect of which decree has been passed by the Lower Court, shall go to the possession of the petitioner immediately along with the standing crop and Baldev Singh shall not, in any way, cause any hindrance in her possession. She will be entitled to cut the standing crop or cultivate or sow which were not yet sown. The petitioner agreed to forego her claim regarding the amount of Rs. 3063/-for which decree was passed by the trial Court. He, on this basis, contends that the petitioner was the owner of the land in question and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jalandhar, dated 01.06.1987 cannot be sustained.

(3.) His further contention is that respondent No. 6 Sulakhan Singh preferred a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Consolidation Act'). The said petition was filed against the petitioner and her husband. This petition under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act was dismissed by the learned Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jalandhar vide order dated 28.05.1987 (Annexure P-3). The remaining private respondents, namely, Sajan Singh, Baldev Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Gajjan Singh-respondents No. 3, 4, 5 and 7 respectively also preferred a petition under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act against the petitioner and her husband Piara Singh but the said petition was withdrawn on 30.03.1987 (Annexure P-4). Thereafter, Punjab Government has preferred a petition under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act through the Deputy Secretary (Rehabilitation) Punjab, Chandigarh, wherein the petitioner was proceeded against ex-parte and the order dated 01.06.1987 was passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jalandhar (Annexure P-5).