GRAM PANCHAYAT, PHULL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GRAM Panchayat, Phull, Tehsil Shahkot, District Jalandhar has filed the instant petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 16.1.1998 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab (respondent No. 2) vide which an application filed by some of the proprietors of the village under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for partition of the land in question between the right holders of the village has been allowed and the matter was remanded to the Consolidation Officer, Jalandhar with the direction that he should re-partition the disputed land amongst the right holders of the village.

(2.) THE consolidation of Holdings took place in village Phull in the year 1961-62. During the consolidation, some land was reserved for common purpose of the village by imposing pro rata cut on the right holders of the village. The land in question, comprising Khewat No. 192, Khatauni Nos. 244 to 246, total measuring 76 Kanals 1 Marla was also reserved for the common purposes of the village during the consolidation of Holdings. This land has been described in the jamabandi for the year 1994-95 in the name of Musterka Malkan and in the column of cultivation, it has been described as Panchayat deh in possession of the lessee of the Gram Panchayat. The entry regarding lease money is also mentioned against some of the Khataunis in column No. 9 of the above said jamabandi. When the contesting respondents No. 4 to 15 filed the petition qua this land under Section 42 of the Act before the Additional Director, Consolidations, the same was not contested by the Gram Panchayat. The then Sarpanch stated before the Additional Director, Consolidations that the Gram Panchayat has no objection if the land in question is re-partitioned among the right holders of the village. Upon that stand taken by the Gram Panchayat, the impugned order was passed. But, subsequently the petitioner- Gram Panchayat decided to challenge the order dated 16.1.1998 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No. 2. Hence, the instant writ petition was filed by the Gram Panchayat on 16.10.1998.

(3.) ON behalf of the respondents No. 5 to 15, Shri Kanwaljit Singh, Advocate submitted that the land in question belongs to Jumla Mushtarka Malkan which vests in the proprietors of the village. This land was reserved in the consolidation for common purposes, but the same was not utilised for that purpose. Therefore, neither it falls under the definition of 'Shamlat deh' nor it vests in the Gram Panchayat. Regarding the impugned order, he submitted that Additional Director, Consolidation was competent and was having jurisdiction to order re-partition of the land in question under Section 42 of the Act. Therefore, there is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by respondent No. 2 and the writ petition filed by the petitioner-Gram Panchayat is liable to be dismissed.