BALDEV SINGH Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT, VILLAGE DUDHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the judgment dated 13.12.1999 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P. No. 15334 of 1997 and further for directing the respondents not to implement the aforesaid judgment being inoperative, illegal and without jurisdiction qua the petitioners as the same was passed in their absence.

(2.) IN this writ petition, the petitioners have pleaded that they are the proprietors/right-holders of village Dudhal, Tehsil Payal, District Ludhiana. In consolidation, certain land was reserved for common purposes of the village by imposing pro rata cut on the proprietors of the village. But some land could not be earmarked for any common purpose of the village and that land, which is called the bachat land, was recorded in the revenue records as Shamlat Deh Hasab Paimana Hakiat Khewat Daran. The said land belongs to the proprietors of the village and the same was to be repartitioned among them. However, the said land was illegally and wrongly mutated in the name of Gram Panchayat and subsequently it was wrongly recorded under the ownership of Gram Panchayat. Thereafter, the petitioners along with some other proprietors filed a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Additional Director, Consolidation, Punjab, for repartition, of the said land among the proprietors. The aforesaid petition was allowed by the Additional Director, Consolidation, vide his order dated 28.3.1996 (Annexure P-1) and the aforesaid land was ordered to be re-distributed among the right-holders. The petitioners further pleaded that in view of the aforesaid order, the land in question was repartitioned among the proprietors and the petitioners were put into physical possession of the land which fell to their share and the mutation was sanctioned in favour of all the right- holder, including the petitioners. Subsequently, some of the non-proprietors Natha Singh and 52 orders filed C.W.P. No. 15534 of 1997 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before this Court challenging the aforesaid order dated 28.3.1996 passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation. In that writ petition, the petitioners, in favour of whom the aforesaid order dated 28.3.1996 was passed, were not impleaded as a party. The said writ petition was allowed by a Division Bench of this court vide order dated 13.12.1999 while holding that the Additional Director. Consolidation has no jurisdiction in the matter regarding repartition of the bachat land and that authority now vested with the Collector under the provisions of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961.

(3.) WHEN the aforesaid writ petition came up for regular hearing before this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioners was asked to satisfy this Court as to how the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court is maintainable. Shri S.D. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners submitted that this Court has wide power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in exercise of that power, the earlier order passed by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be quashed and reviewed if it is found that the same was passed by this Court in violation of the principles of nature justice or the same was passed adverse to the persons without impleading them as a party. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Shivdeo Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1963 SC 1909.