AMRIK SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing order dated 18.1.1995 passed by the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab at Mohali. M/s. Tin Plate Industries purchased land measuring 10 Kanals-18 Marlas bearing new Killa numbers 113//15/2/1(1-10), 16/2 (5-0),15/1/2(2-10), 114//20/2/2(1-18) from the original owner, after obtaining permission from the Consolidation Officer. A path was provided through the middle of this land. M/s. Tin Plate Industries filed an objection petition under Section 21(2) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the "Consolidation Act") before the Consolidation Officer, praying that alignment of the path be altered. The Consolidation Officer dismissed the petition on 25.8.1965. An appeal filed under Section 21(3) of the Consolidation Act was allowed by the Settlement Officer on 3.2.1966 and the path, in question, was assigned a new alignment on the side of the land belonging to M/s. Tin Plate Industries. The land was sold in 1973 to Parmeshri Dass son of Lachhman Dass etc. The latter raised some construction on the land, originally, reserved as the path. The petitioner claims to have purchased the land, in dispute, on 7.6.1976 from Parmeshri Dass etc. The petitioner also claims that he has constructed two rooms, one kitchen, one store and one bath room for residential purposes, after demolishing the old structures.

(2.) The private respondents filed a petition under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act on 18.3.1983, praying that as right holders were not impleaded or granted an opportunity of hearing, before order dated 3.2.1966 was passed, the said order is a nullity and may be set aside. The Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, vide order dated 30.3.1983, passed an ex parte order setting aside order dated 3.2.1966. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act, bringing the ex parte order to the notice of the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, who, vide order dated 27.3.1984, set aside the ex parte order and directed that the matter shall be heard afresh, after inspection of the spot. The Additional Director Consolidation called for a report from the Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer submitted a report, dated 12.12.1985, pointing out that the path provided, vide order dated 3.2.1966, is in use at the spot.

(3.) The Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, vide order dated 18.12.1985, accepted the petition, filed by private respondents and set aside order dated 3.2.1966, by holding that it is an ex parte order and thereafter remanded the matter to the Settlement Officer, to decide the matter afresh. It would be appropriate to point out that the petitioner did not challenge this order any further and appeared before the Settlement Officer, who, vide order dated 27.6.1986, remanded the case. The Consolidation Officer passed order dated 30.12.1987 affirming the alignment of the path provided, by the Settlement Officer, in his order dated 3.2.1966. The private respondents filed an appeal under Section 21(3) of the Consolidation Act. The Settlement Officer, vide order dated 29.12.1988, accepted the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. The petitioners filed an appeal under Section 21(4), of the Consolidation Act, before the Assistant Director Consolidation of Holdings. The appeal was allowed, vide order dated 7.6.1993, and the case was once again remanded to the Settlement Officer, for deciding the matter, afresh, after visiting the spot and taking such evidence into account as may be produced by parties.