AJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three writ petitions have been heard together but main arguments have been addressed in Ajit Singh v/s. State C.W. 663 of 1965, the facts of which may briefly be stated:

(2.) The Petitioner claiming to be a land -holder of Village Ropalon, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana, has approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution alleging that the officer on Special Duty purporting to exercise the powers of the Punjab Government issued a notification on 2nd May, 1961, for the purpose of carrying out de novo consolidation of holdings in his village although this village had already been consolidated on co -operative basis in the year 1940. After this notification Shri Gurkirpal Singh, giving himself out as a Consolidation Officer, prepared the scheme of consolidation of holdings under Sec. 14(2) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act (hereinafter described as the Act). Up to 3rd May, 1962, Shri Gurkirpal Singh was not invested with the powers of the Consolidation Officer, with the result that he was wholly incompetent to take any action under Sec. 14(2) of the Act. When this matter was brought to the notice of the State Government, one Shri Harcharan Singh, P.C.S., Officer on Special Duty, Consolidation Department, Punjab, made a futile attempt to remove the lacuna by issuing a gazette notification which was published in the Government Gazette, on 11th May, 1962. This notification, as reproduced in the petition, reads as under:

(3.) On behalf of the Respondents, a preliminary objection has been raised which is based on delay and laches on the part of the Petitioner. It is urged that the consolidation scheme of this village was confirmed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation of Holdings, under Sec. 20(3) of the Act on 6th January, 1962 and the present petition filed on 10th March, 1965 deserves to be thrown out on ground of laches alone. On the merits, retrospective appointment of Shri Gurkirpal Singh as Consolidation Officer has been justified, inter alia, on the strength of a Single Bench decision of this Court in Chaudhri Basti Ram etc. v/s. State of Punjab etc. C.W. 1774 of 1962. It has also been pleaded that the impugned consolidation was fully justified and it is denied that there has been any fragmentation as alleged by the Petitioner. The previous consolidation, it is urged, does not operate as a bar to the present proceedings. The 17th Amendment of the Constitution is, according to the Respondents, unavailing to the Petitioner because it does not affect the present case. These are the points which have been canvassed before us.