GRAM PANCHAYAT OF VILLAGE JAWAHARI Vs. DHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned order, Annexure K, was quashed by the learned Single Judge by his order dated April 11, 1975, in the writ petition filed by Dharma the petitioner-respondent, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. This decision has been assailed in the present letters patent appeal.

(2.) The consolidation proceedings in village Jawahari, Tehsil Sonepat, District Rohtak under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act), were initiated as early as 1956. Objections were filed by Dharma, right-holder, the petitioner-respondent, under Section 21 of the Act. As he did not prove successful, he filed a petition under Section 42 of the Act which was dismissed by the order of the Additional Director, Consolidation, dated August 23, 1961, Annexure D to the writ petition. Meanwhile, another right-holder Teka had also pursued his objections regarding the allotment of tak to him. His petition under Section 42 was allowed, the previous order was quashed and the case was remanded to the Settlement Officer for de novo decision by the Additional Director by his order dated March 5, 1962, Annexure E. On remand the Settlement Officer by his order dated April 25, 1964, Annexure F, effected changes in the allotment of land not only with regard to the land of Teka but also other right-holders including Dharma, the petitioner-respondent, whose petition under Section 42 had been earlier rejected. That order was challenged by five right-holders through five separate appeals before the Assistant Director, Consolidation who disposed of all the five appeals by one order dated March 13, 1965, Annexure G, vide which the order of the Settlement Officer was set aside and it was held that the order of the Additional Director under Section 42 of the Act on the petition of Teka, right-holder, amounted to review of his previous order, Annexure D, and was thus without jurisdiction. The order, Annexure G, was also set aside by the Additional Director, Consolidation, under Section 42 by his order dated October 30, 1965, Annexure H, and the case was sent back to Assistant Director, Consolidation, with the direction to re-decide the case in the light of the observations made therein. It was at this stage that all the right-holders including Dharma, the petitioner-respondent, Teka, Gram Panchayat as well as Ram Parshad and others, who had felt aggrieved at one stage or the other and had approached the consolidation authorities, entered into a compromise regarding the allotment of taks and on the basis of the compromise, allotment of land was made by the Assistant Director, Consolidation, by his order dated March 24, 1966, Annexure J. This order also was again made the subject-matter of challenge under Section 42 of the Act by some right-holders other than the Gram Panchayat, the present appellant. The Additional Director, Consolidation, set aside this order by his order dated October 14, 1966, Annexure K, holding that the first order of the Additional Director dated August 23, 1961, Annexure D, on the petition of Dharma, right-holder, had taken away the jurisdiction of the Director, Consolidation, for re-opening the matter any further and hence even the order of the Assistant Director as a result of the compromise between the right-holders was also not sustainable. This last order, by which even the consent order had been set at naught, was challenged by Dharma, the petitioner-respondent through the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge quashed the order, Annexure K, and restored the order, Annexure J, by the Assistant Director, Consolidation, which was based on a compromise between the various right-holders. This order has not been assailed by any other right-holder except by the Gram Panchayat through its Sarpanch.

(3.) The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, is that the then Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat had given his consent to the re-allocation of taks along with other right-holders before the Assistant Director, Consolidation, which resulted in the passing of the order, Annexure J, on March 24, 1966, without any authority from the Gram Panchayat. It is stressed that under the provisions of the Gram Panchayat Act, the Sarpanch could not enter into a compromise without there being a resolution of the Gram Panchayat authorising him to undertake such a step and as such, the alleged compromise order was not binding on the Gram Panchayat.