HARPAL SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner (since deceased and now represented by his legal heirs), prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing order dated 14.11.1996 (Annexure P -3) passed by the Additional Director (Consolidation of Holdings), Jalandhar, Punjab. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and his brothers are owners in possession of property bearing Municipality No. 3425/21, which was purchased by their father on 2.11.1946. A house has been constructed and the outer gate is installed in the land, in dispute. The petitioner was compelled to file a civil suit as respondent No. 2 threatened to make a passage through their house. Vide order dated 24.10.1996, the Civil Court directed parties to maintain status quo. During pendency of the suit, respondent No. 2, surreptitiously, filed a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the "Consolidation Act") for correction of an alleged error, in consolidation proceedings by impleading "Mushtarka Malkan" through the Sarpanch, but without impleading the petitioner. The Sarpanch appeared, on behalf of "Mushtarka Malkan" and conceded the claim of respondent No. 2. The Additional Director, Consolidation, passed an order excluding 01 Kanal land which abuts the petitioner's house from "Panchayat Deh" and allotted it to respondent No. 2, as Khasra No. 325. The impugned order passed without impleading the petitioner, is illegal and void. It is further submitted that as consolidation proceedings concluded in 1959, the petition filed under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act, after a delay of 37 years, was not maintainable. Reliance in this regard is placed upon Gram Panchayat Kakran v. Additional Director Consolidation, : 1997 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 498.

(2.) COUNSEL for respondent No. 2 submits that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition. The land, in dispute, was purchased by respondent No. 2's father, vide registered sale deed dated 11.2.1955, bearing old khasra number 206, which was converted into new khasra No. 331/3, but inadvertently, the land was recorded as Khasra number 324. The Director Consolidation, therefore, rightly ordered correction, in the revenue record. The petitioner has no right, title or interest in the land in dispute and is, therefore, not a necessary party. The delay in filing the petition is irrelevant as consolidation authorities can correct an error at any time, by exercise of power under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , consolidation proceedings, concluded in the year 1958 -59. The petition for correction of an error in consolidation proceedings, was, admittedly, filed after a delay of 37 years. Section 42 of the Consolidation Act empowers the State Government or its delegate to examine, "at any time", the legality or propriety of any Scheme prepared or orders passed during consolidation. The expression "at any time", does not grant a license to a party to file a petition, under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act, after inordinate delay, particularly a delay of 37 years. The expression "at any time" has to be necessarily construed as "reasonable time". While considering the scope and ambit of Section 42 of the Consolidation Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Gram Panchayat Kakran's case (supra) that a person aggrieved by an error in consolidation proceedings, has to approach consolidation authorities within "reasonable time". This apart, there is no explanation for delay of more than three decades in approaching consolidation authorities. The Additional Director Consolidation, therefore, had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed after a delay of 37 years.