PADAM NABH SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged Notification No. J/4238 dated 24th November, 1972, issued by the Director of Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab (Copy Annexure A-1) under section 14(1) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The said notification is in the following terms :-

(2.) This notification was issued in order to prepare a scheme of consolidation of the holdings for the better cultivation in the village. The writ petitioners have challenged this notification on the ground that the consolidation had already taken place in this village before the partition of the country on co-operative basis and not under the present Act. The present Act was admittedly passed in the year 1948. It is further averred that the said notification is unnecessary as there is no fragmentation in the village and moreover the petitioners and other right-holders have improved the land and constructed the wells, tube-wells and other buildings. Against this notification, the petitioners also filed a petition under Section 42 of the Act which was dismissed by the Additional Director vide his order dated 15th October, 1973 (copy Annexure 'C'). It is in these circumstances that the present petition has been filed.

(3.) The return filed on behalf of the State of Punjab shows that the consolidation in this village had taken place in the year 1944-45 on co-operative basis and at that time the village was owned by Muslims and local owners. After the partition of the country, the Muslims migrated to Pakistan and their land was allotted in small pieces to refugees displaced from Pakistan and Chandigarh Capital oustees. It is denied that there was no fragmentation of holdings after the year 1944-45. However, the construction of one well, twenty-one bores and some kothas is admitted. It is also averred in para 3 of the return that in the scheme of consolidation prepared under the notification, tubewells and bores sunk by thee right-holders have been reserved for the previous owners. It is further averred that due notice under rule 5 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949 was properly published in the village vide Resolution No. 14 dated 16th October, 1973, recorded in the Proceedings Book and the scheme was prepared by the Consolidation Advisory Committee in consultation with the right-holders. It is said that since there was fragmentation, there was need for consolidation in the village and thus the notification was properly issued.