GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE connected matters (C. W. P. Nos. 3664 and 4218 of 1987) which have been filed by the persons claiming to be the lessees of the land in dispute have been dismissed by my order of even date on the short ground that the petitioners therein have no locus standi to challenge the order impugned i. e. Annexure P-1. The present writ petition has been filed by the Grain Panchayat impugning the same order though identified as Annexure P-2 which had been impugned in those connected matters. Vide order Annexure P-2, the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, exercising the powers under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, has given a positive finding that the land in question vested in the proprietors of the village and was not Shamlat Deh. He has also given a finding that it was the proprietors who were in possession of the property, although this fact has been stoutly disputed by the Gram Pabchayat and the petitioners in the two connected cases, referred to above.

(2.) IT has been argued by the counsel for the petitioner-Gram Panchayat that the land in question was Shamlat Deh in view of the documentary evidence which had been produced. This stand has been controverted by Mr. Sanjay Majithia, learned counsel for the private respondents, arguing on, the strength of the written, statement and documents produced by him. I, however, find that the Director has disposed of the matter in a very casual manner. He has. made a reference to the fact that some evidence had been produced and he had considered the matter in that light. He has not discussed the evidence whatsoever. The finding recorded is reproduced below :-

(3.) IT is now well settled that the reasons given in a quasi judicial order cannot be supplemented by the pleadings filed in a writ petition The order itself has to be a composite and complete one. This requirement is absolutely lacking in the order.