CHAHAT KHAN BAHADUR KHAN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution there are twenty-nine petitioners belonging to village Gulalta in Tehsil Ferozepore Jhirka of Gurgaon district. Consolidation of holdings began in that village with the publication of a notification for that purpose under section 14 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (East. Punjab Act 50 of 1948), hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act', sometime in 1956. On appointment of the Consolidation Officer under that very section, after advice of the landowners of the estate, he prepared on May 4, 1957, a scheme for consolidation of holdings in that estate. After some objections to the scheme under Section 19 of the Act, certain changes were made in it, and it was then finally confirmed by the settlement Officer (Consolidation) under Section 20 of the Act. There was an advisory committee of the landowners in the village, and Zore Khan, Nur Mohd and Zen Khan, respondents 4 to 6, were members of that committee. In pursuance of and in conformity with the scheme, repartition was carried out on november 12, 1957, according to Section 21 (1) of the Act. A number of landowners, including respondents 4 to 6, stated in the return by respondents 1 to 3, the State of Punjab, the Director of Consolidation of Holdings, and the settlement Officer (Consolidation), filed 115 objections to the repartition before the Consolidation Officer under Sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the Act. After the decision of those objections the land-owners took possession of the new holdings allotted to them, some in the end of 1957 and others in the beginning of 1958. After that under Section 22 of the Act a new record-of-rights in that respect was prepared for the year 1957-58. The proceedings for the Consolidation of holdings in the village came to an end on or about February 16, 1959. On July 30, 1960, the Director of Consolidation of holdings made a recommendation to the State Government for amendment of the scheme of consolidation of holdings in the village under Section 36 of the Act so as to provide a separate tak or plot for allotment for chahi (well-irrigated) area. This recommendation of respondent 2 was accepted by respondent 1 on March 28, 1961. Pursuant to the order of respondent 1, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) respondent 3, amended the scheme under Section 36 of the Act, follow ed by proper and due proceedings under the provisions of the Act for confirmation of the amended scheme. It was duly published in the village on september 21, 1961. So far the facts are not disputed.

(2.) THE petitioners aver that respondents 4 to 6, though they were members of the advisory committee and responsible for the original scheme, with their friends and relations, for personal ends and to exhibit their influence, approached certain officers, probably the consolidation officer 'flying Squad', and on that that officer made a move to favour those respondents. "the result was that without the petitioners being heard, recommendation was made by respondent 2 to respondent 1 and accepted by the latter for amendment of the scheme of consolidation of holdings in the village. This is denied in the return of respondents 1 to 3. It is pointed out that some land-owners of the village made applications under Section 42 of the Act praying that as they had not been given well-irrigated area in lieu of such area owned by them before repartition, so they be given relief in that respect. Their applications were sent to respondent 3 and it was thereafter that the matter was considered by respondent 2 and the recommendation made for amendment of the scheme which was accepted by respondent 1. This difference between the parties is not at all material for the purposes of the matter that arises for consideration out of the petition of the petitioners.

(3.) THE other matter that may be noted here is that, while according to the petitioners the land-owners were satisfied with the scheme of consolidation of holdings in the beginning, finally confirmed and published, but in the return of respondents 1 to 3 it is pointed out that some such land-owners were not satisfied as they had not been allotted on repartition well-irrigated areas in lieu of such areas in their ownership and possession before the beginning of the consolidation of holdings in the village. In that return it is further stated that entries in the misal-haquiat of 1938-39 show nine wells in the village, of which there was none with sweet water, but there were two with average quality of water and seven with bitter or brackish water, and out of those nine wells six were in use and not the remaining three. In the Jamabandi of 1958-59, apparently prepared after the repartition, are shown ten wells out of which five are in use and not so the remaining five. Again there is no well with sweet water, but there are two wells with bitter or brackish water, four with saltish water and the remaining four have average quality of water. It is apparent that according to this statement in the return of respondents 1 to 3, before repartition there were only six wells in use and after repartition there are shown in the Jamabandi only five wells in use. A well with a bitter or brackish water leads to accumulation of alkalinity in the land which almost renders the land unfit for a crop. Saltish water is also detrimental to the rearing of crop. Average quality of water can be used for irrigation. Before repartition there were only two wells of average quality of water and after repartition there are shown four such wells in the Jamabandi, but it is not shown how many, if any, of those wells were not in use. The statement in the return in this respect is vague, unsatisfactory and consequently entirely unhelpful if its object has been to justify the amendment of the scheme under orders of respondent 1 on the recommendation of respondent No. 2. The petitioners aver that most of the wells in the village were not in use and as those in use are with brackish water, so they are turning the land into alkali and thus becoming a cause for destruction of crop. They further point out that Jamuna Link Canal has brought canal irrigation to the village and with that well irrigation has lost its meaning. This last statement is accepted by respondents 1 to 3 in the return. The parties are trying either to justify the amendment of the scheme or to show complete absence of such justification, but this approach, to my mind, is not relevant to the question that is under consideration in this petition. If a scheme of consolidation of holdings is amended in conformity with law, the reason or motive for that would ordinarily be not a justiciable matter in a petition of this type.