BACHANA RAM Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BACHANA Ram and 44 other petitioners have approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing orders dated 28.10.1982 (Annexure P-1), dated 10.8.1983 (Annexure P-2) and dated 10.5.1984 (Annexure P-4) passed by Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab in exercise of his power under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short "the Act").

(2.) THE consolidation of holdings in village Mangwal took place somewhere in the year 1956-57, Deva Singh (Respondent No. 2) was the owner in possession of Killa No. 57/13/2/2 measuring 1 bigha 4 biswas and 14 biswansis in the revenue estate of village Mangwal; this land was of "A" grade. During the consolidation proceedings, Deva Singh (Respondent No. 2) was given an alternative land in lieu of the afore-mentioned land but the land thus allotted was less by 6 biswansis, it seems that Deva Singh (Respondent No. 2) sold his share in the land to Sanjiv Kumar and Sangit Kumar, Respondent No. 3 and 4 Deva Singh (Respondent No. 2) also moved a petition under Section 42 of the Act for making good the deficiency to the extent of 6 biswansis of land, the petitioners are owners and land holders of village Mangwal, the learned Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab vide his order dated 28.10.1985 (Annexure P-1) after having obtained a report dated 22.2.1982 from the Field Kanungo, concluded that there was deficiency of 6 biswansis in the land allotted to Deva Singh (Respondent No. 2). He decided to make this deficiency good out of bachat land available in the village, therefore, issued a notice to the Jumla Malkan through Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat who contested the afore-mentioned petition, an objection was raised by the Sarpanch that the petition under Section 42 of the Act was in fact filed by Sanjiv Kumar and Sangit Kumar who had purchased Killa No. 57/13/2/2 from Deva Singh (Respondent No. 2) after the consolidation and thus, had no locus standi to file the petition. The Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, however, did not agree to this contention and held that the mistake could be corrected at any time and since Deva Singh (Respondent No. 2) was allotted less land to the extent of 6 biswansis, he directed to make good the same by allotting land from the Jumla Malkan (bachat) in Killa No. 33/18/10, some proprietors of the village namely, Surjit Singh and others also approached the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings Punjab through a petition under Section 42 of the Act challenging the allotment of additional land to Deva Singh (Respondent No. 2) through Sanjiv Kumar and Sangit Kumar vide order Annexure P/1 as, according to these petitioners, the land allotted was in excess of their share. The learned Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings Punjab vide an order dated 10.8.1983 (Annexure P-2), however, dismissed the aforementioned petition of Surjit Singh and others holding that there was no legal infirmity in the order dated 28.10.1982 (Annexure P-1) except that the correction was required to be made in respect of the name of the allottee in as much as the name of Deva Singh (Respondent No. 2) through Sanjiv Kumar etc. was to be entered in place of Sanjiv Kumar and Sangit Kumar.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the orders dated 28.10.1982 (Annexure P-1), 10.8.1983 (Annexure P-2) and 10.5.1984 (Annexure P-4), some of the proprietors of the village have now approached this Court through the present writ petition.