RAJ PAL Vs. DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have sought the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order Annexure P/11 dated 14.7.2004 passed by Joint Secretary, exercising powers of Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'; order Annexure P/10 dated 13.7.2001 passed by the Settlement Officer and order Annexure P/9 dated 29.5.2001 passed by the Consolidation Officer, vide which respondent No. 4 has been allotted 5 marlas of land, out of Khasra No. 480, being Gair Bishwedar. The facts, in brief, are that respondent No. 2 Ruldu Ram and others filed a petition under Section 42 of the Act before the Director, Consolidation, Haryana, requesting that they may be allotted some land for residential purposes, out of Khasra No. 480, which was reserved for allotment in the shape of plots to the non-proprietors for residential purposes, under the scheme during consolidation. The said land is still lying vacant. However, the possession was not delivered to them till the filing of the petition and, therefore, they could not construct their houses. Inspite of the notice issued to the Gram Panchayat, none appeared before the Additional Director Consolidation, Rohtak. However, respondent No. 2- applicant submitted a writing on behalf of the Panchayat that if the plot, after partition, was given to the petitioners, the Panchayat would have no objection. Accordingly, exparte proceedings were effected against the Panchayat. The applicants demand was considered. Additional Director remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer, Hisar with a direction that he should verify the record of the consolidation if any land was reserved for the residence of Gair Biswedars and whether the same was still available and secondly if any list of Gair Biswedars was attached with the Scheme. In case any land was reserved for the Gair Biswedars, then the same be given to them as per the list after partition so that they could construct their houses. The Consolidation Officer on verifying the record found that Khasra No. 480 was reserved for Gair Biswedars for the purposes of residential houses. A list of Gair-Biswedars was also attached with the Scheme and, therefore, he ordered that a plot of 5 marlas be given to every Gair Biswedar in Khasra No. 480. List of Gair-Biswedars to whom the plots were allotted was, therefore, placed on the file. This order was challenged by Raj Pal, the petitioner, as Ex-Sarpanch of the village mainly on the ground that he was not given an opportunity of hearing. According to him when the case was remanded he was the Sarpanch of the village, therefore, notice should have been issued to him. It was further stated that after serving notice to the present Sarpanch, who did not appear, the Panchayat was proceeded against exparte. Petitioner's appeal was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation and secondly he was not the Sarpanch and, therefore, had no right to file the appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, Raj Pal and other petitioners filed appeal under Section 21(3) of the Act before the Settlement Officer pleading that neither any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners nor any spot inspection was conducted when the order dated 22.11.2000 was passed for allotment of plots to 24 persons. It was further pleaded that the land bearing Khasra No. 480 was the property of Maharaja Harinder Singh.

(2.) Respondent No. 2 Ruldu Ram contested the appeal on behalf of all the applicants stating that as per the jamabandi of the year 1999-2000, Maharaja Harinder Singh was the owner of Khasra No. 480 which was in possession of Gair Marusian of villages Dhana Kalan Kundnapur, Dhani Peerwali, Dhani Kumharan, Dhana Khurd Rampura. Said Khasra Number has been described as Gair Mumkin Bara. As per the Scheme of the consolidation, residential plots were to be given to the Gair Marusian and Gair Biswedars. Petitioners did not have any documentary proof to prove any interest or title in khasra number 480. Settlement Officer, after taking into consideration the facts and evidence on record came to the conclusion that though the Gram Panchayat was issued notice but the Sarpanch refused to accept the summons and, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte. The petitioners did not have any title or interest in the suit property and, therefore, it was not necessary to give any opportunity of hearing to them.

(3.) Since the petitioners had no legal right, the appeal was dismissed. The petitioners thereafter approached the Joint Secretary exercising the powers under Section 42 of the Act challenging the order of the Settlement Officer. After considering the arguments, the Joint Secretary also dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners. It was observed that the petitioners are/were neither the owners nor Gair Biswedars nor the tenants under the original owner of the suit property. There is no documentary evidence in their favour. The owner of the land in question is Mehrawal Khiwaji Trust etc and it is in possession of Gair Marusian, therefore, it has been rightly allotted to the Gair Biswedars.