KARNAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, who had dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants against the order of the Additional Director of Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab Jagnandan Singh, respondent, moved an application under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act) before the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Ferozepore. He raised two grievances that the shape of his Tak holding, was irregular and zigzag and that before consolidation, he had about 70 Kanals of land in the niain (land situated near the village abadi) whereas after the consolidation he had been given much less land. On the other hand, Karnail Singh and others, the present appellants, owned only 22 Kanals of niain land and had been during consolidation alloted more than 111 Kanals of such land. It is needless to mention that niain land is most precious land in the village because of its location. The Additional Director found force in both these contentions. He noticed that before consolidation, Karnail Singh and others had only 22 Kanals and 5 Marlas of niain land. It also came to his notice that Jagnandan Singh had more than 70 Kanals of niain land and had been allotted only 53 Kanals of that quality of land. He also came to a conclusion that if some land out of the "A grade" land of Jagnandan Singh is taken and the same is given to Karnail Singh and others, justice would be done to the parties. The land given in this change adjoins the major portion of land of Sher Singh and Karnail Singh in the niain area. He withdrew about 35 Kanals of land of niain land from the appellants and compensated Jagnandan Singh and others. Of course, land was given to the appellants in lieu of lands taken away from them.

(2.) Dissatisfied by this order of the Additional Director, Karnail Singh and others and his co-owner filed this writ petition in this Court. They contended that they had been allotted "A grade" land near their major portion and respondent Jagnandan Singh had been allotted land around his major portion and allotments were made in accordance with the Scheme. These pleas did not find favour with the learned Single Judge. He concluded that the order of the Additional Director was legal and was in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme. The writ petitioners were not entitled to the allotment of 111 Kanals of niain land at the cost of Jagnandan Singh and others. He also held that the writ petitioners had not placed any data on the file that their niain plot measuring 22 Kanals and 5 Marlas was their biggest plot and at the highest percentage. In the absence of this evidence they could not find any fault with the conclusion of the Additional Director. The writ petitioners had been rightly fitted at their major portions. He dismissed the writ petition.

(3.) Before us, Mr. M.S. Sandhu, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has strenuously argued that the order of the Additional Director is against the provisions of the Scheme. However, we have not been able to find any merit in this contention. Admittedly, the appellants had only about 22 Kanals of niain land. They were not entitled to the allotment of such a big chunk of precious land which did not belong to them previously, at the cost of other right holders of the village. On the other hand, Jagnandan Singh had been allotted only 53 Kanals of niain land whereas he had 70 Kanals of such land. Mr. Sandhu has not been able to point out that Jagnandan Singh was not entitled to the allotment of land which had been given to him by the Additional Director. The provisions of the Scheme were clearly present to the mind of the Additional Director. Even in his order he has mentioned that the land taken out of the holdings of Jagnandan Singh is being given along side of the land comprised in the major portion of the appellants. As noticed by the learned Single Judge, the appellants have not been able to point out anything on the records to show that the plot measuring 22 Kanals and 5 Marlas was biggest in "A grade' : land of the appellants. In the absence of that evidence, the finding of fact recorded by the Additional Director, who was competent to do so and whose findings have been affirmed by the learned Single Judge for good reasons; cannot be set aside in this Letters Patent Appeal. In fact the learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to raise any cogent argument in support of his appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge.