GURMEET SINGH Vs. CONSOLIDATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS , Gurmeet Singh and Harbans Singh, have filed the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the mutation Nos. 1743 (Annexure P-3) and 1744 (Annexure P-4) vide which the land recorded in the ownership of Shamlat Patti Rajputan Hasab Pamana Hakiat and Shamlat Patti Awana Hasab Pamana Hakiat, were changed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on the asking of the Deputy Commissioner, and entered the same in the name of individual shareholders/proprietors.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the consolidation proceedings in the village Bhamian Khurd took place about 20 years ago. In those proceedings, the land in question was recorded in the name of Shamlat Patti Rajputan Hasab Pamana Hakiat and Shamlat Patti Awana Hasab Pamana Hakiat. On 5.5.2000, an application was filed by respondents 2 to 9 before the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana with a prayer to direct the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Ludhiana to mutate the land in question in the name of the applicants in accordance with the partitions effected by them between themselves. The said application was to the following effect :-

(3.) THE petitioners have challenged the aforesaid mutations on the ground that neither the Deputy Commissioner nor the Assistant Consolidation Officer was having any jurisdiction to change the mutation from the name of Shamlat Patti Rajputan and Shamlat Patti Awana in the name of individual proprietors. He submitted that after completion of the consolidation in the village, the consolidation authorities became functus-officio and the same have no jurisdiction to change the mutations. It is for the Assistant Collector Ist Grade under the Punjab Land Revenue Act to partition the land among the co- sharers if the land is a Bachat land belonging to the proprietors. In the present case, the Assistant Consolidation Officer was having no jurisdiction at all. He had changed the mutation in the name of the proprietors, even without holding an enquiry, just on the asking of the Deputy Commissioner. Neither any notice was issued to any person who might be affected by the change of mutation nor any enquiry was held about the nature of the land, whether it was a Bachat land or a shamilat deh used for the common purposes of the village. He further submitted that the mutations cannot be changed at the asking of the Deputy Commissioner, on the basis of the judgment passed in L.P.A. No. 868 of 1992, titled as Gurjant Singh and another v. Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur and another, 2000(2) RCR(Civil) 437 (P&H) (DB) : (2000-2) 125 PLR 347.