GURMAIL SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE contour of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that during the course of consolidation proceedings, in view of the provisions of The East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"), it revealed that Narain Singh, father of the petitioners, had 2/7th share in the land bearing Khasra No.1136/961, but this area was wrongly allotted to other persons, namely Rakesh Devi and Shiv Dutt etc. Sequelly, certain other vital discrepancies, with regard to the allotment of land to Narain Singh, as per his entitlement/category of valuation of land, were also noticed as the area was not correctly attested at the spot, with the result that his major portion was wrongly worked out. Immediately, he raised this objection before the Consolidation Officer (for brevity "C.O."), who observed that he is not competent to attest the area at the spot, after passing the stage of scheme under section 21 (1) and now it can only be corrected under section 42 of the Act.

(2.) THEREAFTER , father of the petitioners immediately filed a petition under section 42 of the Act, which was accepted and matter was remitted back to CO for its fresh decision to correct the error by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings (respondent No.1) (for short "ADCH"), by virtue of order dated 28.7.1988 (Annexure P1).

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order (Annexure P2), Shiv Dutt son of Sarua Nand filed the appeal under section 21 of the Act, which was dismissed as well, by the Settlement Officer (for brevity "S.O."), by way of order dated 16.2.1990 (Annexure P3).