ISHWAR DAYAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the instant petition, the petitioners claim relief for the rescinding of consolidation scheme, as carried in Annexure P-2, besides they also pray for the quashing of the order, drawn on 23/1/2019, as carried in Annexure P-4, whereby the petitioners' application for rescinding of consolidation scheme (supra), became dismissed.

(2.) The consolidation department had started the consolidation operations in the village concerned, on the basis of jamabandi for the year 2001-2002. Thereafter, vide resolution dtd. 18/2/2005, equal value of the entire land was assessed. Ultimately on 31/3/2005, the draft consolidation scheme was published, and, whereafter it became finalized by the consolidation officer concerned. Aggrieved from the finalized consolidation scheme, the petitioners herein along with other land holders of the village concerned, preferred a petition under Sec. 42 of the Prevention from Fragmentation of Land Holding and Consolidation Act, before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala Cantt hence seeking the setting aside of the finalized consolidation scheme, prepared on 31/3/2005, by the Consolidation Officer, Karnal, and, for preparing it fresh after giving a proper opportunity of hearing to the land holders of the village concerned. However, vide order dtd. 23/1/2019, the petition (supra) was dismissed by the authority concerned. Hence, the present petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended with much vigour, before this Court that, at the time of consolidation operations, the consolidation authorities concerned, have not borne in mind, the relevant parameters appertaining to (a) parity or equivalence of monetary value(s) of the lands subjected to consolidation; (b) nor did bear in mind, the equivalence(s) of distribution of lands of all categories amongst the land owners concerned. He further submits, that prior to the finalization of the consolidation scheme, no notice became served, upon the petitioners. Therefore, the absence of an apposite prior notice becoming served, upon the petitioners concerned, has resulted in the petitioners rather becoming condemned unheard.