LAWS(P&H)-2001-9-90

GRAM PANCHAYAT NURPUR JATTAN Vs. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS, PUNJAB, JALANDHAR AND ORS.

Decided On September 05, 2001
Gram Panchayat Nurpur Jattan Appellant
V/S
The Additional Director, Consolidation Of Holdings, Punjab, Jalandhar And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against order dated 26.7.1991 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing C.W.P. No. 10259 of 1988 filed by the appellant against orders dated 30.3.1987 and 9.6.1988 passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab (respondent No. I). 2. The facts necessary for deciding the appeal are that in the consolidation proceedings held some time prior to 1957 under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short, the Act), 72 kanals of gair mumkin land falling in Village Munder Bet was reserved for being used for common purposes and pro -rata cut was imposed on the holdings of different land owners including respondent No. 2. In 1986, respondent No. 2 submitted an application under Section 42 of the Act before respondent No. 1 for restoration of his share by stating that the land reserved for common purposes had never been used for those purposes. By an order dated 30.3.1987, respondent No. I accepted the application of respondent No. 2 and restored certain area of land to him. Respondents No. 3 to 6 applied for re -calling order dated 30.3.1987 on the ground that the land, in fact, had been used for common purposes and respondent No. 2 was not entitled to restoration of his share. After hearing the Advocates for the parties including the Gram Panchayat, respondent No. 1 dismissed the said application.

(2.) THE petitioner challenged orders dated 30.3.1987 and 9.6.1988 in C.W.P. No. 10259 of 1988 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge with the following observations:

(3.) WE have given serious thought to the arguments of the learned counsel, but have not felt persuaded to agree with him. In our opinion, the order of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference in the appeal. Section 23 -A of the Act, on which reliance has been placed by Shri Mahajan, reads as under: