KARTAR SINGH Vs. LAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three Letters Patent Appeals (L. P. As 157 and 187 of 1970, and L. P. A. 582 of 1971) arise out of the decision of two different writ petitions by a learned Single Judge of this Court.

(2.) THE consolidation scheme of village Balian Khurd, tahsil Malerkotla, district Sangrur, was published on December 27, 1955. An amended scheme was published on April 26, 1957, and was confirmed on September 11, 1957. The repartition under sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act (50 of 1948) (hereinafter called the Consolidation Act) was published on January 18, 1958. Possessions were thereafter transferred and after this had been done, the consolidation record was consigned to the record room. Bhag Singh father of Karnail Singh writ-petitioner (respondent No. 4 before us) filed an appeal under sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Consolidation Act before the Assistant Director which was decided on July 28, 1959. The Assistant Director ordered some changes to be made affecting the Kurrah of the writ-petitioners and of Kartar Singh, etc. Kartar Singh, etc. did not get possession of the Kurrah which was allotted to them under the order of the Assistant Director, dated July 28, 1959. They made an application to the Consolidation Officer for getting the possession of the land to which they were entitled under the order of the Assistant Director delivered to them. Notice of that application (Annexure 'a' to the writ petition) was issued by the Consolidation Officer to Lal Singh and others (writ-petitioners) requiring them to vacate the illegal possession of the Killa numbers in question within 15 days from the date of the notice (August 11, 1969), or to file objections, if any, against the delivery of possession. In the notice it was further stated that if neither any objections were filed, nor possession delivered, proceedings under Section 23 (2) of the Consolidation Act would be taken against Lal Singh, etc.

(3.) WRITTEN objections, dated September 12, 1969 (copy Annexure 'b') are claimed to have been filed by Lal Singh, etc. before the Consolidation Officer in response to the said notice. In paragraph 6 of the objections it was stated that the Consolidation Authorities could have changed possession just after the order of the Assistant Director within a reasonable time and before consigning the record, and that in any case action could not be taken after the expiry of more than three years as provided in Section 122 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act (17 of 1887) (hereinafter called the Revenue Act ). The case of the State is that the objections Annexure 'b' were never filed. Be that as it may, the fact remains that Lal Singh and others moved this Court by writ petition, dated September 17, 1969, for quashing the notice Annexure 'a' calling upon them to deliver possession of the land in dispute. The writ petition was contested by Sohan Singh and Kartar Singh as well as by the State. It was contended in the State's return (affidavit of the Consolidation Officer, Bhatinda, dated October 31, 1969) that there was no restriction as to time for ordering change of possession in implementation of the scheme of consolidation. The writ petition was, however, allowed by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, dated December 18, 1969, on one of the two grounds urged before him. It was held that there is no provision in the Consolidation Act which prescribes some specific procedure which may be adopted by a Consolidation Officer for delivering possession, or which may impose some time limit for giving effect to the changes which may be ordered under the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 21 or an order passed under Sections 36 or 42 of the Consolidation Act. The learned Judge observed that the only provision in the Consolidation Act which deals with the right to possession of new holdings is Section 23. It was further held that the Consolidation Officer had been permitted to exercise the powers of a Revenue Officer under Section 122 of the Revenue Act to deliver possession to a landowner or a tenant in partition proceedings. On account of the phraseology of Section 122 of the Revenue Act, it was held that a Consolidation Officer can deliver possession of a holding to a right-holder or a tenant within three years of the order passed under the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 21 or an order passed under Sections 36 or 42 of the Act, in pursuance of which change is made. It was consequently decided that "the Consolidation Officer had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice in September, 1969, after the lapse of ten years requiring the writ-petitioners to deliver possession. " The learned Judge further observed that there is no provision of law which authorizes the Consolidation Officer to have unlimited power to deliver possession of a holding to a right holder as a Revenue Officer, because a Consolidation Officer can exercise only those powers which are vested in a Revenue Officer under the Revenue Act. The second argument advanced before the learned Single Judge by the writ-petitioner-respondents was that the order of the Assistant Director was itself invalid. This contention was turned down on the ground that they had not challenged the legality of the order passed under Section 21 (4) of the Consolidation Act earlier and they could not be permitted to do so after ten years of the passing of that order. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, Kartar Singh has filed L. P. A. 157 of 1970. The State of Punjab and the Consolidation Authorities who were respondents in the writ petition have filed L. P. A. 187 of 1970, against the same judgment. The prayer in both the appeals is that the writ petition of Lal Singh etc. should be dismissed.