JAI BHAGWAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition contains a challenge to the consolidation proceedings for the Village Anangpur, Tehsil and District Faridabad, as being not in conformity with the scheme issued on 25.05.2009 by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Rohtak and still later through a letter issued by the Tehsildar-cum- Consolidation Officer on 06.07.2009.

(2.) AT the outset, it could be noticed that a challenge to consolidation itself after a due notification through a writ petition would be extraordinary and, therefore, the first point that has to be assessed before considering the petitioner's claim on merit, would be to see whether the provisions of the Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 have not been followed and the requisite procedure for due notification before finalization of consolidation had not been effected, so that notification could be found to be bad and allow for a fresh consideration in the light of the scheme and the letter referred to by the petitioner passed by the respondents 3 and 4 respectively.

(3.) THE order has been passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Gurgaon, exercising the powers under Section 42 of the Act on 03.11.2010, but this writ petition has been filed on 12.03.2011 without making any reference to the order passed by the Commissioner. After the notice was ordered issuing the interim relief that the transfer of possession in regard to 97 bighas from Khewat No.247 which was gair mumkin nullah allegedly forming part of the pahar, shall remain stayed vide interim order dated 22.03.2011, the Government has filed reply on the first hearing on 29.04.2011 itself. At that time, it was pointed out that the writ petition itself was vexatious and that by the earlier order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.14811 of 2006, the petitioner had reserved his right to challenge the consolidation scheme by a petition under Section 42 and after having invited the authorities to pass the order which was actually done on 03.11.2010, a fresh writ petition itself was not maintainable. It was at that time the Court had directed on 05.09.2011 that the State should place on record the consolidation order. As if not to be faulted on his deliberate suppression, the petitioner has attempted to make a clean breast of himself by filing an application in CM No.14273 of 2011 and has filed Annexure P-8, which is the order passed by the Consolidation Officer to the objection filed under Section 42.