PREM CHAND Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PREM Chand (now deceased through his legal representatives) filed the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order 6.11.1995 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Additional Director Consolidation, Punjab, Mohali (respondent No. 1 herein), vide which an application filed by Harbans Singh (respondent No. 2 herein) under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for correction of the mistake during the consolidation proceedings was allowed.

(2.) IN this case, the dispute is about khasra No. 98//15/1 total measuring one kanal, situated in Village Rahaun, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana. Prior to the consolidation, this land was comprised of Khasra No. 834 and was owned and possessed by one Waryam Singh, father of respondent No. 2. That was his only holding in the said village. In the consolidation, the aforesaid khasra number was converted in 96//15/1, 6/3 and these khasra numbers were allotted to petitioner Prem Chand alongwith other land. He was allotted near about 61 kanals of land.

(3.) AFORESAID Khasra number was the only land owned and possessed by his father and the same should have been allotted to him. Learned counsel submitted in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat Kakran v. Addl. Director of Consolidation and another, 1997(4) RCR(Civil) 498 (SC) : 1997(2) PLJ 375 and decision of this Court in Gram Panchayat of Village Mahadian and another v. The Additional Director, Consolidation Punjab and others, 1999(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 520 : 1999(2) PLJ 282, respondent No. 1 should not have exercised his jurisdiction under Section 42 of the Act for making change in the scheme of the consolidation after such an inordinate delay. Secondly, he submitted that if there was any deficiency in the area of respondent No. 2, he should have been given land from Zumla Mustarka Malkan land of the Gram Panchayat instead of giving land from that land of the petitioner. In that way substantial justice would have been done to the parties.