TARLOK SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the petitioners are impugning orders dated 14-7-1981 (Annexure P-7) and 18.5.1984 (Annexure P-12) passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Chandigarh, respectively.

(2.) In brief, the facts are that consolidation took place in village Jandwala Charat Singh, Tehsil Muktsar, district Faridkot, somewhere in the year 1961. Immediately thereafter, re-partition was made. According to the petitioners, some of th area was owned by patties, Rai Singh, Charat Singh and Khazan Singh, Didar Singh, Nihal Singh and Kala Singh and Gram Panchayat. The major portion of that area was used for common purposes like paths, khal etc. As per the provisions of the Scheme as contained in Annexure P-1, after meeting the demand for common purposes, the rest of the land belonging to the Panchayat and patties was to be treated as one unit and the respective possession of the righ-holders was to be proportionately reduced on account of cut imposed during consolidation for common purposes and the remaining area was to be given according to the provisions of the general scheme which provided for allotment of land in different blocks at the respective major portions. This was in terms of Section 21(1) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). As per the averments in the writ petition, one Gurbax Singh and Jaggar Singh filed a petition before the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Ferozepur (for short, the Additional Director) under Section 42 of the Act in which they claimed that they had been in cultivating possession under Shamlat Patti Charat Singh, but were not given possession of the same during consolidation of holdings. They therefore, prayed that they be given possession. Their prayer was accepted and they were held entitled to possession of the land. Like-wise Bakshish Singh filed a petition before the Additional Director under Section 42 of the Act in which he made the same very prayer. The Additional Director vide his order dated 28-2-1967 (Annexure P-5) held that Bakshish Singh and others, if there be any, who were in possession under various shamlat pattis in the village, would get possession of the land of which they were in possession before commencement of consolidation of holdings with proportionate cut because of utilisation of land for the purpose of path, Khal etc., and also on account of land which was previously given to some of the right-holders. Accordingly, the Settlement Officer was directed to do the needful at the earliest. Vide this very order, the Additional Director held that in the event of any dissatisfaction at the hands of the Settlement Officer, the aggrieved right- holders can re-agitate the matter before the Additional Director under Section 21 of the Act or can come in revision under Section 42 of the Act. The Settlement Officer in pursuance of this order, and on finding that the presence of a large number of right-holders would be required to carry out the orders of the Additional Director, remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer with a direction that he would make necessary amendments according to the orders of the Additional Director. The Consolidation Officer in order to implement the order of the Additional Director, prepared a list of the pattis and also of the areas which were not possessed by any-one. In his order dated 14-7-1981 (Annexure P-7), he found that 374-08 area was required to be given to the persons in possession, by imposing a cut according to the directions of the Settlement Officer and the Additional Director. He thus, in compliance of the order of the Additional Director, made necessary changes, the details of which find mention in Annexure P-7. Some of the petitioners being aggrieved of the order of the Consolidation Officer, approached the Settlement Officer, who vide his order dated 29-3-1982, Annexure P-8, set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer and remanded the case to him with a direction that after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned, the case be decided afresh in accordance with the general provisions of the Scheme. The Settlement Officer was of the view that the Consolidation Officer has adjusted the area of each right-holder along with his major portion and this decision of the Consolidation Officer was not in accordance with the general scheme. According to him, provisions of the Scheme provided for consolidation of area of all the four pattis and the Gram Panchayat as one unit and the allotment to the right-holders was to be made from that unit alone. Though the Settlement Officer agreed with the contention of the respondents that if the provisions of the Scheme are followed, there would be whole-sale shifting and it would amount to revocation of partition, yet did not accept this contention. He was also of the view that the Scheme requires to be amended by making suo-motu reference to the Additional Director. The respondents being aggrieved, approached the Additional Director, who after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, restored the order of the Consolidation Officer after setting aside the order of the Settlement Officer. The orders of the Additional Director and that of the Consolidation Officer are being challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) Respondents in their written statement have denied the averments made in the writ petition and stated that petitioners have no locus-standi to impugn the orders as according to them, petitioners having migrated from Pakistan being displaced persons, have no right in the land belonging to the Pattis as only those persons had a right in Shamlat Patti who were the right- holders on 15th August, 1947. Further, according to the respondents, the orders of the Consolidation Officer and the Additional Director are correct and in accordance with the Scheme.