GRAM PANCHAYAT SHITABGARH Vs. DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is directed against the order of the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Annexure P-3, dated 24th May, 1988, whereby a direction has been issued that the land in dispute be mutated in favour of the proprietors in a manner detrimental to the interest of the petitioner-Gram Panchayat. As per the averments in the petition, the suit land was recorded as "shamlat Deh Hasab Hissa Halsari" in the revenue record prior to the start of consolidation proceedings in the year 1953-54. It has been averred that the Pepsu Village Common Lands and Regulation Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Pepsu Act) was enforced with effect from March 1955, and vide section 3 thereof, it is provided that all land which is included in Shamlat Deh of any village, shall on the appointed date, vest in a Panchayat having jurisdiction over the village. Section 4 of the Pepsu Act provided that the Shamlat Deh lands vested in the Gram Panchayat were to be managed by the Panchayat for the benefit of the inhabitants of the village. It has been averred that keeping in view the principles of the Pepsu Act, the State of Punjab issued a letter for the convenience of the authorities directing them to sanction mutation in the name of the Gram Panchayat. It has been averred that in accordance with this letter, the land in question was mutated in the name of the Panchayat on 13th June, 1957. The challenge had been made by the private respondent to the sanction of this mutation before the Director of Consolidation of Holdings on the ground that there was, in fact, no order of the Punjab Government directing that the mutation be sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat and, as already mentioned above, this petition has been allowed by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings vide Annexure P-3.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner-Panchayat has raised before me three arguments in favour of the Gram Panchayat. He has urged that the Director Consolidation had no authority to direct the change of mutation as that was the sole function of the authorities under the revenue law. He has also asserted that as the question of title was involved between the parties, the matter should have been decided by taking recourse to Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands and Regulation Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the 'regulation Act' ). He has also asserted that the Director of Consolidation should not have, in any case, interferred with the matter after the lapse of over 30 years.

(3.) CONTROVERTING the pleas raised by the petitioner, counsel for the respondents has asserted that the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, has, in fact, not changed the entries with regard to the mutation, but he has only sought to rectify the mistake, which had been committed by the consolidation authorities, at the time of the consolidation proceedings. He has also urged that in any case, there was no Government letter directing that the mutations be sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat, as averred by the petitioner. Annexure P-2 appended with the petition and relied on by the petitioner only says that till the promulgation of a uniform law in place of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953 and the Pepsu Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1954, is enacted, the sanction of mutations against the interest of the proprietors be kept in abeyance.