RANBIR SINGH Vs. MANGAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent involves the interpretation of section 29 of the Patiala and East Punjab States Union Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 2007 BK (hereinafter referred to as the pepsu Act ). This section runs as follows:-

(2.) IN the case before us on 3rd July, 1956 a notification under sub-section (1) of s. 14 of the Pepsu Act was published in the Official Gazette. This notification was not published in the village till 15th October, 1957 the appellant Ranbir Singh, made transfer of certain land belonging to him in the village concerned to his sons by way of gift and mutations were effected. In dealing with the question as to the location of the major portion of Ranbir Singh etc. , the Additional Director took into consideration these mutations. The party adversely affected namely, Mangal singh, filed Civil Writ No. 183 of 1966 challenging this action on the ground that in view of Section 29 of the Pepsu Act, no alienation of land could be taken into consideration for the purpose of consolidation without the sanction of the consolidation Department. It is a common case that the Consolidation authorises did not apply their mind to the question whether it was a fit case for granting the sanction or not, but it was felt by the Additional Director that inasmuch as the alienation took place before the notification was actually published in the village. Section 29 of the Pepsu Act did not apply and, consequently, there was no question of granting any sanction.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that section 29 of the Pepsu Act lays down a prohibition against any alienation made after the notification being taken into consideration for the purpose of consolidation unless such an alienation is permitted by the Consolidation department. Consequently, he accepted the writ petition set aside the impugned order and directed that "they would now proceed with the matter in accordance with the provisions of Section 29 as interpreted in this judgment". He left the parties to bear their own costs. Ranbir Singh being aggrieved has filed this Letters patent Appeal.