BALBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners No. 1 to 6 are the successors-in-interest of Gulzar Singh, whereas petitioners No. 7 to 12 are the successors-in-interest of Kartar Singh. All the petitioners have filed the instant petition challenging the order dated 28th February, 1985 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jalandhar, in exercise of the powers under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Vide the impugned order, on a petition filed by Malkiat Singh (respondent No. 2), an irrigation channel has been provided from the southern side of plots Nos. 131, 132, 133 and 134 and from the eastern side of plot No. 131, for irrigating his land, comprised in Killa Nos. 19/ 11 and 20//16/6, which he had got in exchange from one Phuman Singh, a resident of the village. The petitioners have further challenged the order dated 27th January, 1986 (Annexure P-4), whereby on the review application filed by respondent No. 2, the Additional Director has ordered for substitution of Khasra No. 40 as 44 regarding the irrigation well.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that in the year 1962-63. the Scheme of Consolidation for village Khera, Tehsil Phagwara, District Kapurthala, was prepared (the extract of the scheme has been annexed as Annexure P-1) and according to the said scheme, the right-holders, who had constructed their houses on the area inside the Phirni and outside the Lal Lakir were to be provided the residential plots adjoining to their existing plots, where they had constructed their houses for extension of the Abadi outside the Phirni. It was specifically provided in the scheme that those right-holders, who were to be allotted adjoining plots, will not be given any new Gali or path. It is further the case of the petitioners that prior to the consolidation, Gulzar Singh and Kartar Singh were originally owning plot No. 47 and they were allotted plot No. 133 as an extension of Abadi, which adjoin each other. Likewise, plot No. 49 was owned by Harkishan Singh (respondent No. 3) and during re-partition, he was allotted Abadi-extension plot No. 131. Similarly, the other plots were allotted in extension of the Abadi to other right-holders. It is further the case of the petitioners that between the old plots and the new plots, neither any path nor any irrigation water channel was provided. Rather, a water channel bearing No. 135 starting from well bearing No. 44 was provided to the Kura of agricultural land, owned and possessed by Satnam Singh. It is further the case of the petitioners that after the consolidation was over, none of the right-holders, whether he was owning original Abadi plot or the extended Abadi plot or having nearby agricultural land, including Satnam Singh and Phuman Singh, made any challenge either to the allotment of the Kuras or alignment of the irrigation channel. In the year 1978, respondent No. 2, who also owned land in the nearby village Sadarpur, made exchange of land, comprised in aforesaid two killa numbers, with Phuman Singh. Six years thereafter, he moved a petition under Section 42 of the Act for providing him an irrigation channel from well bearing No. 44, in which his predecessor Phuman Singh has also a share, on the ground that no water channel was provided for irrigating the land of Phuman Singh, which he had got in exchange. The said application has been allowed,--vide the impugned order.

(3.) In the written statement, filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, the framing of the village scheme, as indicated above, has not been disputed. It has also not been disputed that the owners of Abadi Plots No. 46, 47, 48 and 49 were allotted the extension-abadi plots No. 134, 133, 132 and 131, respectively. It has also not been disputed that a water channel was provided from well bearing No. 44, for irrigating the agricultural land, owned by Satnam Singh and Phuman Singh, as has been depicted in the site plan (Annexure P-2). The facts shown in this site plan have also not been disputed.