LAWS(P&H)-2015-7-523

GRAM PANCHAYAT OF VILLAGE KAPIAL, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT SANGRUR Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION, PUNJAB, MOHALI AND OTHERS

Decided On July 07, 2015
Gram Panchayat Of Village Kapial, Tehsil And District Sangrur Appellant
V/S
Additional Director, Consolidation, Punjab, Mohali And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Gram Panchayat of village Kapial, Tehsil and District Sangrur is before us praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing, order dated 24.9.1996, passed by Additional Director, Consolidation, Punjab.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order, passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation, in the exercise of power under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the "Consolidation Act" ), holding that the land does not vest in the Gram Panchayat and depriving the Gram Panchayat of its land, is without jurisdiction. A Full Bench of this Court has held in Ajit Singh versus Smt. Shubhagan and others, 1970 AIR(P&H) 93 that consolidation authorities are not empowered to decide a question of title. This apart, the Supreme Court has held in Gram Panchayat Sidh versus Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, 1997 3 RCR(Civ) 491(SC) and Gram Panchayat Nurpur versus State of Punjab and others,1997 1 PunLJ 268 that the Director, Consolidation, exercising power under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act, has no jurisdiction to decide whether a parcel of land vests or does not vest in a Gram Panchayat as jurisdiction to decide such a dispute, rests in the Collector, exercising power under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1961 Act").

(3.) Counsel for the private respondents submits that the Additional Director, Consolidation, has merely rectified an error in consolidation proceedings, allotted land to the rightful owner and cannot be said to have determined a question of title, much less assumed jurisdiction, vested in the Collector, under Section 11 of the 1961 Act. The impugned order, is legal and valid as rights with respect to the land in dispute, were conferred upon the private respondents by order, dated 14.2.1907, passed by the Commissioner, Patiala, which has only been implemented, in the revenue record, by the Additional Director, Consolidation.