AMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed to quash the orders of the Settlement Officer in Appeal No. 359 dated November 13, 1978, as confirmed by the Additional Director, Punjab, in Petition No. 667 of 1979 dated May 12, 1981, by issuing a writ of certiorari.

(2.) The petitioner and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are residents of village Man Bibrian, tehsil Mansa, district Bathinda. The petitioner filed an application on December 14, 1970 before the Consolidation Officer for withdrawal of the area allotted to him. During the consolidation proceedings, certain land in Killa Nos. 5, 6, 29 had been allotted to Inder Singh son of Jaggar Singh and Inder Singh son of Sarwan Singh. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 filed an objection to the said consolidation proceedings on December 14, 1970, before the Consolidation Officer wherein they also sought for withdrawal of the area alloted to the petitioner during the consolidation. The said application was heard by the Consolidation Officer, Sangrur, on June 18, 1971, and certain amendments have been made in the consolidation proceedings. The appeal was filed against the said order to the Settlement Officer, Sangrur, who dismissed it by his order dated October 7, 1971. It appears respondent No. 3 approached the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, who remanded the case matter. The Assistant Director by his order dated April 23, 1974, remanded the matter to the Settlement Officer with the following directions :-

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Settlement Officer while passing the order dated November 13, 1978, went beyond the scope of remand dated April 23, 1974, and, therefore, the order of the Settlement Officer dated November 13, 1978, is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the order of the Additional Director, Punjab, dated May 12, 1981, is also liable to be quashed. The learned counsel further contended that he has been in possession of the land allotted to him originally in 1972 and if the orders of the Settlement Officer are to be implemented now, he will be put to irreparable loss because for the last twenty-three years he has improved the land and cultivated the same. The learned counsel for respondents Nos. 3 and 4 contended that the Settlement Officer has consolidated the holdings after taking into account the various aspects of the matter and therefore the order of the Settlement officer dated November 13, 1978, does not required any interference by this Court.