KARNAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 07.12.1993 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab in petition No.32 of 1993 dated 07.12.1993 under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 filed by respondent No.3, seeking path No. 24, which according to respondent No.3 was sanctioned under the consolidation scheme in the year 1953-54 in respect of village Simbal Majra, which was leading to adjoining village Rurki Muglan. The said petition having been accepted by respondent No.2, the petitioner is before this Court.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 07.12.1993 (Annexure P-5) is unsustainable on two counts. Firstly, the consolidation proceedings in the village Simbal Majra were finalised in the year 1953-54. The petition under Section 42 of the Act was filed in the year 1993 and, therefore, the same was beyond limitation in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gram Panchayat, Kakran vs. Additional Director of Consolidation, 1997 4 RCR(Civ) 498; and Secondly, that a civil suit was filed on July 24, 1973 by the father-in-law of respondent No.3, Shri Chanan Singh, which was dismissed on July 21, 1975 (Annexure P-2) wherein identical relief was claimed by the father-in-law of respondent No.3. The civil appeal preferred against the judgment dated 21.07.1975 was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur on April 17, 1978 (Annexure P-3) by affirming the findings of the trial court. It was argued that the order dated 07.12.1993 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No.2 is contrary to civil court judgment and the findings recorded therein are, therefore, liable to be set aside. It was also argued that the question of title can only be decided by the Collector.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 supported the order passed by respondent No.2.