KARTARA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners claiming themselves to be tenants of Gram Panchayat and putting reliance upon decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994(2) R.R.R. 232 : AIR 1994 S.C. 2301, are challenging the order dated 15.12.1998 (Annexure P-9), passed by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue Punjab, Chandigarh, dismissing the application filed by them under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1948') seeking setting aside of the order dated 19.9.1995 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jalandhar. The ground to challenge the impugned order (Annexure P-9), is that the petitioners were the interested party within the meaning of the proviso to Section 42 of 'the Act of 1948' and were entitled to be heard before passing any order on the application filed by the proprietors against the Gram Panchayat and thus, the order, Annexure P-1, passed by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings is not binding on them and same is liable to be set aside.

(2.) THE petitioners have stated that the proprietors of the Shamlat land, i.e. respondents No. 5 to 12, filed an application under Section 42 of 'the Act of 1948' before the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jalandhar on the ground that the disputed land was shown in revenue record as Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Zer Khewat belongs to the right holders of the village and the same was wrongly mutated in the name of the Gram Panchayat as it was never used for any common purpose of the village. The prayer made in the application was that the disputed land be partitioned amongst the right holders of the village being Bachat land. The said application was allowed vide order dated 19.9.1995 (Annexure P-1), by holding that the land in question was Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Zer Khewat before consolidation and later on this entry was wrongly changed to Shamlat Deh under the ownership of Gram Panchayat. It was held that land in question did not vest in the Panchayat, which was having no right to lease out the same for its income. It is the proprietors of the village, who are owners of the land. Accordingly, it was ordered that share of the proprietors be separated from the common land reserved for the common purpose as per the scheme of consolidation. The said order was challenged by the Gram Panchayat by filing writ petition in this Court, which was dismissed in limine on 5.12.1995 (Annexure P-2). The SLP was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 7.2.1996 (Annexure P-3). The order (Annexure P-1), passed by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, in favour of the right holders, thus, became final. Consequent upon passing the order (Annexure P-1), the matter went to the Consolidation Officer for making correction in the record and for repartition of the Shamlat Deh between the right holders. The Consolidation Officer, Mohali, vide his order dated 27.12.1995 (Annexure P-4), ordered modification in the record and re-partition of the land regarding some proprietors. After three years of passing of the aforesaid order, the petitioners filed a petition before the Financial Commissioner, Revenue Punjab, Chandigarh, under Section 42 of the Act of 1948 with a prayer to set aside the order dated 19.9.1995 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab and the order dated 27.12.1995 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Consolidation Officer, on the ground that they were the necessary party in the application filed by the proprietors before the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, but neither they were impleaded nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to them before passing the aforesaid orders. It was their contention that though they were tenants of Gram Panchayat and dispute was between proprietors on the one hand and the Gram Panchayat on the other, but still they were the necessary party and the said application could not have been decided in their absence. Therefore, the aforesaid orders are illegal and are liable to be set aside. The Financial Commissioner, after hearing the petitioners as well as the proprietors, dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners vide order dated 15.12.1998 (Annexure P-9), which has been impugned in the present petition, after more than two years.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioners has relied upon Sarwan Singh's case (supra) and contended that the order dated 19.9.1995 (Annexure P-1) and the consequent order dated 27.12.1995 (Annexure P-4) are liable to be set aside because these were passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, who are tenants of the Gram Panchayat and who are legally entitled to be heard in any dispute between the proprietors and the Gram Panchayat.