HUKAM CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated March 30, 1970, by which the petition of the writ-petitioners was dismissed.

(2.) Briefly, the facts which gave rise to the writ petition are that the writ-petitioners namely, Tulia and Khem Chand and respondents 4 to 74 were rightholders in village Kalwan, Tehsil Narwana, district Sangrur, where a notification under Section 14 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Consolidation Act') was issued by the State Government for the purpose of consolidating the holdings of the rightholders. It is further stated that Khewat No. 234 is situated in Patti Chand which is recorded in the revenue records as the joint property of the proprietors in the said Patti, according to their shares in their holdings. The writ-petitioners and the said respondents are the only rightholders in the said Patti and a provision was introduced in the scheme of consolidation at the time of confirmation thereof that the joint Khewats of the Patti should be divided amongst the right-holders. No objections were filed by any of the rightholders in the Patti against the said clause. The writ-petitioners subsequently filed objections under Section 42 of the Act to the effect that the land comprised in Khatauni Nos. 583 and 584 was a part of Khewat No. 234 and was owned and possessed by them; that their ancestors reclaimed the land eighty years back; that the rightholders in the Patti had no right, title or interest in the said Khataunis; that the entries in the revenue records regarding the ownerships were wrong; that there was a dispute regarding the title of the said land and that the land should not be partitioned. The learned Additional Director after taking into consideration the respective arguments of the parties dismissed the objections vide order dated July 14, 1964 (Annexure 'B') and ordered that the property in dispute should be partitioned as already provided in the scheme.

(3.) The writ-petitioners filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against the said order in this Court. The writ petition came up for hearing before Prem Chand Jain, J. It was contested by respondents 1 to 3, 4, 5 and 54. Return was filed by respondents 1 to 3 only. The learned Judge after considering the matter came to a finding that apparently the point involved was a question of title and that the revenue authorities admittedly could not go against the revenues entries, wherein the ownership of Khewat No. 243, Khatauni No. 583 was recorded in favour of Patti Chand. In the circumstances, the writ petition was dismissed.