PAT RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has been filed by Pat Ram challenging the validity of the order dated 17th of January, 1963 passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Rohtak, respondent No. 1.

(2.) The petitioner and Het Ram, respondent No. 2 were the tenants of one Jatinder Singh, who belonged to village Bhotan Khurd, Tehsil Fatehabad, District Hissar. Consolidation operations started in this village on 3rd of May, 1960. The scheme of consolidation was published by the Consolidation Officer on 31st August, 1960, and the same confirmed by the Settlement Officer on 25th of November, 1960. The partition under Section 21(1) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was done on 27th of January, 1961 and was confirmed under Section 21(2) of the Act on 17th of March, 1961. After the completion of the consolidation proceedings, the record was consigned on 31st of May, 1961. During the consolidation, the tenancy land under dispute was allotted to the petitioner at the time of repartition under Section 21(1) of the Act. He was a tenant on the said land for a long time much before the consolidation operations started in the village. According to the petitioner, this land was originally barani but latter on when canal water was available it became irrigated and was then levelled with the help of a tractor at great expense by him. Neither the landlord nor respondent No. 2 filed any objections or appeals with regard to this land under sub-clauses (2), (3) and (4) of Section 21 of the Act. On 1st of September, 1961, respondent No. 2, however, filed an application under Section 42 of the Act before respondent No. 1 praying that he had not been allotted area to the extent he had held before consolidation and the mistake in that behalf be corrected. By the impugned order respondent No. 1 accepted this application and withdrew certain area from the petitioner and gave the same to respondent No. 2. That led to the filing of the present writ petition.

(3.) After hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition must be accepted. The application under Section 42 of the Act was admittedly filed beyond limitation. Respondent No. 1 has noticed this fact has not given any reasons in this impugned order as to why he had condoned this delay. The ground that he has given for interfering with the repartition is that there was a clerical mistake in the Khasra Girdawaris which had been wrongly entered in the name of the petitioner. According to him the Girdawari should have been in the name of respondent No. 2. It is undisputed that the consolidation authorities act on the latest entries in the revenue records of a particular village. In the return filed by the State it has been admitted that out of the tenancy land allotted to the petitioner as a result of consolidation operations, Killa Nos. 50/3, 4, 8, 9/2 and 10/2 were in his previous possession. The dispute in the present case, according to the learned counsel for the State, was about Nos. 50/3 and 50/4. According to the latest Khasra Girdawaris of the village, on the basis of which the consolidation authorities were acting, these two numbers were admittedly in possession of the petitioner. That being so, the consolidation officer had rightly allotted them to the petitioner. It appears that the grievance of respondent No. 2 before respondent No. 1 was that these two numbers were in his possession according to the earlier Khasra Girdawaris, but somehow or other after colluding with the revenue officials the petitioner got them entered in his name in the subsequent Khasra Girdawaris. Respondent No. 1 accepted this contention of respondent No. 2, according to the learned counsel for the State, on the basis of a report which he got from the Patwari (consolidation). This fact is, however, not mentioned in the return filed by the State. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the latest Khasra Girdawaris were admittedly in favour of the petitioner and the Consolidation Officer was, therefore, perfectly right in allotting the land in dispute to the petitioner. He had to allot the land on the basis of the latest revenue records. If somebody alleged that those records were incorrect, then it was his duty to get them corrected by the revenue authorities. It is admitted in the return by the State that respondent No. 2 had not filed any application for the correction that there was a clerical mistake in those Khasra Girdawaris. Either the earlier Khasra represented the truth or the later ones depicted the correct picture. If respondent No. 2 was aggrieved by the later entries, the proper remedy for him was to get the same corrected by the revenue authorities. The consolidation authorities, however, were bound by the latest revenue records. In a way a question of title had been raised in the instant case. Respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to say raised in the instant case. Respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to say that the entries in the later Khasra Gidawaris were wrong. That is the function of the revenue authorities.