GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge is to order dated 10.9.1996, Annexure P-1, passed by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, whereby land in dispute has been ordered to be partitioned among various land owners.

(2.) IN brief, the facts are that Nachhattar Singh and other respondents alleging themselves to be right-holders of the village, filed petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (in short the 1948 Act) before the Director Consolidation challenging the scheme of repartition on the ground that the land in dispute before consolidation was described as Hasab Rasad Zar Khewat and the right-holders were in possession. They further submitted that the land does not fall within the definition of Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (in short the 1961 Act). They further stated that after utilisation of the land for common purposes, remaining land should have been distributed among the rights-holder according to their respective share but the Consolidation Authorities while preparing the scheme and implementing the partition, committed an error in not doing so. They further contended that mutation No. 398 transferring Shamilat Deh Hasab Rasad Zar Khewat in favour of Panchayat was totally erroneous and was not binding on the rights of Khewatdars. They thus, asked the Director Consolidation that land of Hasab Rasad Zar Khewat may be ordered to be distributed amongst the share-holders. Gram Panchayat contested the petition and contended that the land in dispute is Shamilat and is covered under Section 2(g) of the 1961 Act. Gram Panchayat further submitted that it cannot be divested of the land which had vested in it and that too after 40 years of completion of consolidation proceedings. It further submitted that originally, the land was being managed by the Gram Panchayat for common use and after consolidation, land has been given on Chakota and the amount is being used for the benefit of village community. The Director Consolidation vide order dated 10.9.1996 (Annexure P-1) allowed the application under Section 42 of the 1948 Act and directed the Consolidation Officer (Tehsildar), Fatehgarh Sahib, to assess the requirement of the village for common purposes, as per provisions of law and distribute the remaining land among the right- holders, as per their share. It is this order which is being challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) ALSO in Gram Panchayat Nurpur v. State of Punjab and others, 1997(1) PLJ 268 : 1997(3) RCR(Civil) 47 (SC), the Supreme Court held that the question whether land is Shamilat Deh or not can only be decided by Authorities under the 1961 Act. Following the two judgments of the Supreme Court, referred to above, I am of the view that order, Annexure P-1 passed by the Director Consolidation is not sustainable in law. Dispute whether the land in dispute was Shamilat Deh or not, could only be determined by the Authorities under the 1961 Act. Accordingly, order dated 10.9.1996 Annexure P-1, being without jurisdiction is quashed. Writ petition stands allowed accordingly. No costs. Petition allowed.