GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 11383 of 1990, 4810 of 1993 and 7687 of 1995 as learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the issue involved in all these petitions is identical. However, the facts are being extracted from Civil Writ Petition No. 11383 of 1990. Challenge in CWP No. 11383 of 1990 is to the order dated 25.5.1990, Annexure P.8 passed by respondent No. 1-Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab whereby the petition filed by the private respondents under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (in short, "the Act") against repartition carried out under Section 21(1) of the Act was allowed.

(2.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved, as narrated in the petition, may be noticed. Gram Panchayat of revenue estate Sadhoheri, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala is the petitioner. Consolidation operations started in the year 1957-58 in this Village under the Act. The scheme was framed and resolutions were carried through after consultation with the residents of the village. Thereafter, the actual repartition process was initiated. The right holders were settled on their allotted sites and no objection, appeal or revision had ever been made in respect thereof till the present dispute was raised by the private respondents in the year 1990. The khata in favour of the Panchayat was mutated in its favour vide mutation sanctioned on 28.6.1956 and ever since then the petitioner is recorded to be its owner in possession till date. On 1.3.1990, private respondents moved a petition under Section 42 of the Act challenging repartition carried out under section 21(1) of the Act. The land in question had already vested in the petitioner on the strength of the mutation which was never challenged. According to the petitioner, once the repartition is finalised and record is consigned, the consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to make any change. According to the jamabandi for the year 1984-85, the petitioner had been leasing out parcel of land out of its khata to various persons on chakota and the private respondents had been participating in the auction proceedings and many of them had been taking these parcels of land on chakota from the petitioner. Now after a period of more than 34 years, they cannot challenge the ownership of the petitioner. Under item No. 4 of the Scheme, the area reserved for common purposes was separately formed for being used for the purposes mentioned in it such as Phirni, Rastas, Abadi etc. In the petition under Section 42 of the Act, the private respondents raised an issue that before consolidation, area comprised in Shamlat deh measuring 169 kanals 11 marlas alone had to be used for common purposes but the consolidation authorities reserved the land measuring 313 kanals 3 marlas for charand, school and for the income of the panchayat in separate categories and parcels which was wrong and against the law and could not be reserved for these purposes in the scheme. Vide order dated 25.5.1990, Annexure P.8, respondent No. 1 allowed the petition and ordered that the area be distributed amongst the right holders according to their shares and as a consequence, sent the case to the Consolidation Officer, respondent No. 2 for implementation of the order. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is before this Court through the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order which has been impugned was passed on 25.5.1990 on an application filed by the private respondents on 1.3.1990. According to the learned counsel, the private respondents through the said application had sought re-partition of the land and amendment in the scheme which was framed in pursuance of consolidation proceedings which took place in the year 1957-58. Relying upon judgments in Gram Panchayat, Kakran v. Additional Director of Consolidation and another, 1997 8 SCC 484, Maha Singh v. Director, Consolidation, Haryana and another, 2007 3 RCR(Civ) 494 , Dalbara Singh and others v. The Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jullundur and another, 2004 2 RCR(Civ) 597 , Ajit Singh and others v. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab and another, 2004 3 RCR(Civ) 559 , Gram Panchayat of Village Hari Nagar Kerki v. Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab and others, 2004 4 RCR(Civ) 687 , Gram Panchayat, Bhattian Bet v. Additional Director, Consolidation, Punjab and others, 2005 2 RCR(Civ) 246 , Fauja Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2009 3 RCR(Civ) 227 and Joginder Nath alias Joginder Pal v. Sat Pal and others, 2010 2 RCR(Civ) 217 , it was urged that the Director had erroneously exercised jurisdiction as the scheme was sought to be amended after an inordinately long delay of three decades from its framing.