BHAGWAN SINGH Vs. HARBEANT SINGH ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the same judgment by a learned Single Judge of this Court, and, would therefore be disposed of together.

(2.) Harbeant Singh and Satwant Singh son of Sardar Kabal Singh filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari or any appropriate writ, direction or order for quashing the order of the Director of Consolidation of Holdings, attached to the petition as Annexure 'D' and for directing the Director to repartition the land according to the scheme of consolidation and the directions contained in Annexure 'B'. This Annexure, it may be mentioned, is an order by Shri Harkishan Singh, Director Consolidation of Holdings, dated the 16th September, 1954 by means of which on Harbeant Singh's appeal the case was remanded to the Settlement Officer with the direction that the repartition be brought in conformity with the provisions of the scheme; and Annexure'D' is an order passed by Shri Sapuran Singh, Director, Consolidation of Holdings, filing an application filed by Shri Harbeant Singh and Satwant Singh on 19th July, 1959. According to the allegations in the writ petition the consolidation proceedings in village Barewal Awanan, stated in 1950-51 and the necessary notification was duly issued. The ad hoc committee of the land owners of the village was also formed to advise and help the consolidation and other connected matters. After evolving certain formula and principles for carrying out the consolidation of holdings, a draft scheme within the contemplation of Section 19, East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, was duly published by the Consolidation Officer concerned. No right-holder of the village raised any objection to the scheme with the result that it was confirmed by the Settlement Officer under Section 20 of the Act and was also duly published in the prescribed manner. After he publication of the scheme, the Consolidation Officer started repartition proceedings but in the actual process, the Consolidation Officer, according to the allegations in the petition, committed some grave breaches of the scheme as a result of which the petitioners and other right holders were given inferior kind of land to their prejudice. It is clarified by stating that those who were entitled to chahi land according to the scheme were given inferior kind of land. The petitioners thereupon objected to the repartition, but their objections were dismissed. Simultaneously, some other right-holders of the village also complained to the higher authorities against the Patwari of the halqa, alleging acceptance of bribe by him. An enquiry was thus held against the Patwari, and, according to the petition, Bhagwant Singh respondent No. 3 in the present writ proceedings, who is also a brother of the petitioners, is alleged to have admitted having bribed the Patwari. After the enquiry, the said Patwari proceeds the writ petition, was dismissed from service. An appeal from the order of the Consolidation Officer was taken by the petitioners to the Settlement Officer, but this too was dismissed. A second appeal under Section 21(4) of the Consolidation Act was heard by the Director who remanded the case, as already noticed on 16th September, 1954. After receipt of the remand order the Consolidation Officer is stated to have reported to the Director on 17th December, 1955 that the entire repartition required to be made afresh. The Director, however, wrote back on 21st February, 1956 that the entire repartition should not be made afresh but readjustment be made in the areas of the petitioners and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the writ petition. Respondent No. 3, Bhagwant Singh as already mentioned, is a brother of the petitioners and respondent No. 4 is one Lachhman Singh, resident of the same village. The petition proceeds that when the petitioners found that the order of 16th September, 1954 was not being carried out, a writ petition was filed by them in this Court in July, 1957 (Civil Writ No. 767 of 1957) which was heard by Grover, J. on 22nd September, 1958 and was disallowed on the ground that the petitioners had not exhausted all the remedies available under the Consolidation of Holdings Act. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a petition under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act before the Director Consolidation of Holdings, but the petitioners were never summoned by the said officer. They were, however, informed in October, 1959 that their petition had been filed. This order, as already noted, is Annexure 'D'. It is next alleged that about 11 right-holders were not given any land in the bet area, though according to the scheme every right-holder should have been given a plot in such area. The 11 persons mentioned in the writ petition, it may be sated have not been made parties. Another breach of the scheme pleaded is that although all the right-holder were to be given some barani area, three right holders were given no barani land but were given the whole of superior quality of land. It is significant that even these three persons have not been made parties to the writ petition.

(3.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the Director, Consolidation of Holdings it has been denied that right-holders filed objections against the publication of the scheme thought it is admitted that the objections filed against the scheme itself were dismissed after proper hearing. It is admitted that objections were filed against repartition which were dismissed by the Consolidation Officer in November, 1952. So was the appeal against the order dismissing the objections; but on further appeal, the Director Consolidation remanded the case in September, 1954. with the direction that repartition should be brought into conformity with the provisions of the scheme. In respect of the allegation of dismissal of the Patwari, it has been pleaded that though he was dismissed for allegations of corruption, the said dismissal has no connection with the allotments of the petitioners and the respondents in the present proceedings. In so far as the principal allegation of non-compliance with the provisions of the scheme is concerned, it has been averred that according to the scheme, there is a provision for allotment of three plots; the first in bet area, the second in niain area and the third in the remaining land. According to the scheme, the right-holders could with mutual agreement get land otherwise than in the three categories mentioned above. On 28th June, 1955, the right-holders resolved (by resolution No. 145) that they were not satisfied with the allotment of bet area even though in some cases there were excesses and shortage with some right holder in respect of such area against their tak.