BHAGWAN SINGH Vs. DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS seek issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order passed by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings Punjab, dated 23.6.1987 or for issuance of any other writ, order or direction as the Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(2.) RESPONDENTS No. 2 to 15 filed a petition Under Section 42 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act against respondent Nos. 16 to 24 as well as the petitioners making a prayer that Jumla Mustarka Malkan Khewat measuring 143 K 9 Marlas may be redistributed amongst the right holders according to their shares. After notice to the concerned parties, Director, Consolidation of Holdings examined and came to the conclusion that the Bachat land, in fact, measures 138 Kanals 9 Marlas and relying upon the decision in Civil Writ Petition No. 877 and 892 of 1966 (Pala Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.) ordered for defining the shares of the right holders in respect of this Bachat land after examining the relevant record and hearing the affected right holders. It is this order which has been challenged by the petitioners on the following grounds; (i) that the petition under Section 42 had been filed after 30 years of the Consolidation of Holdings which took place in the village in the year 1957 -58 and so the petition ought to have been dismissed being belated; (ii) that all necessary/proper parties were not impleaded and so the petition ought to have been dismissed; (iii) that the order passed by the Director is a con speaking order; and (iv) that the decision arrived at by the Director, Consolidation is unwarranted by law, pleadings of the parties as well as on merit of the case.

(3.) FACTS as have been noticed above are not in dispute i.e. there is approximately 138 Kanals 9 Marlas of land known as Bachat land (Mushtarka Malkan) in the village. As per scheme of consolidation of holdings, pro rata cut was imposed upon all the right holders of the village and so such an area came into existence. Since the share of each individual shareholder had not been mentioned in the revenue papers, prayer was made by the respondents for the necessary correction of the relevant entry thereby showing the area of each one of the co -owners.