DHAUNKAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition there is a dispute between co-shares regarding the property of partition under the provisions of Section 16-A of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948.

(2.) The consolidation operations in village Kharak Pandwan in Narwana Tehsil commenced sometime ago and when the Consolidation Officer proceeded to make a partition of the joint khatas of the petitioner Dhaunkal and respondents Surjit Singh, Molu and Kesi, respondents 5 to 7, it was objected by Dhaunkal that the respondents were not entitled to a share in the joint khata. The Consolidation Officer before whom claim for partition was preferred by respondents No. 5 to 7 noted that in Khewat No. 92 measuring 400 bighas and 6 biswas they were shown as owners of one half. It was, however, objected by the other set of co-sharers including the petitioners that they have been in possession for a long time and the respondents were actually right-holders in another village and had in effect abandoned their holdings in village Kharak Pandwan. In the view of the Consolidation Officer, a question of title was involved even though respondents 5 to 7 were entered as owners of 200 bighas and 3 biswas which was the one-half share of the entire Khewat area. The Consolidation Officer submitted these papers with his recommendation to the Settlement Officer on 1st of August, 1963 (Annexure A).

(3.) The Settlement Officer, before whom the matter came up, recorded an order on 5th August, 1963 (Annexure B) to the effect that after an examination of the records he agreed with the report with the report of the Consolidation Officer and accordingly directed the application which had been made by the respondents for partition of the holdings to be consigned to the record room. Not satisfied with these orders, the respondents moved the Additional Director under Section 42 of the Act. Influenced by the consideration that the respondents had actually paid Rs. 110/- as consolidation charges and had been shown as joint owners in the Khewat, the Additional Director directed that their Tak should be separated.