JOGINDER SINGH Vs. DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned orders, i. e. , Annexure P1 dated 18. 10. 1978, Annexure P2 dated 21. 7. 1979 and Annexure P3 dated 7. 8. 1980 passed by the official respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and against respondents Nos. 3 to 18 private respondents.

(2.) IT has been alleged by the petitioners that they and respondents Nos. 3 to 18 are the residents of village Kotli Ablu, Tehsil Muktsar, District Faridkot. Consolidation operations took place in the village during the year 1961-62 and parties were settled on their new holdings carved out during the consolidation operations. After the consolidation operations and upto the passing of the impugned orders no person was either aggrieved from any order or entry or went in appeal Under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation)Act (for short 'the Act' ). Later on respondents Nos. 3 to 18 filed two petitions Under Section 42 of the Act before respondent No. 1 and the same were decided vide order dated 18. 10. 1978 (Annexure P1 ). The private respondents prayed in the said petitions that in the Jamabandi for the year 1955-56 Khewat No. 543, Khatauni Nos. 2000 to 2007, Sar hri Karam Singh, Angrez Singh, Lal Singh, Mukhtiar Singh thers were shown as owners, whereas in the column of 'cultivation' Sar hri Sadhu Singh, Karnail Kaur and Nazar Singh, co-owners, have been shown as donors while Karam Singh thers aforesaid were shown as donees and there being a clerical mistake which needed to be corrected Under Section 43-A of the said Act. Respondent No. l, i. e. , Director Consolidation of Holdings, observed in the order that entry in the Khatauni Istamal as well as Naqsha Haqdarwar were correctly prepared but somehow at the time of Khatauni Pamaish No. 1215 the entry was changed. Respondent No. 1 opined in his order that on account of the use of Urdu language, difficulty arose in reading the correct entry and being satisfied that the mistake needed correction the same was ordered to be corrected along with Khatauni Paimaish No. 1215, which came into existence after the consolidation and necessary correction was ordered to be carried in the revenue records showing Sadhu Singh and Karnail Kaur as donors while Karam Singh, Angrez Singh thers as donees. The petitioners alleged that after the passing of the said order, respondents Karam Singh thers were still not satisfied and they filed another application Under Section 43-A of the Act, showing that some other numbers were also there and corrections should be made in respect of those numbers as had been done earlier vide order Annexure P1. This time correction was sought in respect of Khatauni Paimaish No. 1216, 1217, 1218 and 1131 to the same effect as claimed with respect to Khatauni Paimaish No. 1215. The second petition of non-official respondents was disposed of and decided vide order dated 21. 7. 1979 (Annexure P2) and it was observed that Karam Singh and others should have been shown in the column of 'possession' in their capacity as donees in respect of those Killa numbers, which were gifted to them by the relevant resolutions. It was also observed by respondent No. 1 that Khasra numbers mentioned in the petition with respect to abovesaid Khataunis needed to be added to Khatauni Paimaish No. 1215. Further directions were given by respondent No. 1 that Karam Singh thers would be shown as donees in the Khatauni Paimaish and by this order dated 21. 7. 1979 the earlier order dated 18. 10. 1978 (Annexure P1) also stood amended. Feeling aggrieved by the orders dated 21. 7. 1979 and 18. 10. 1978, the petitioners filed a revision Under Section 42 of the Act before respondent No. 2, who passed order dated 7. 8. 1980 (Annexure P3)and dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners. The grouse of the petitioners is that they were co-share is in the land along with the non-official respondents as the Khata was joint and they applied for the partition of the Khewat on 18. 11. 1974 itself before the passing of the impugned orders Annexures P1, P2 and P3. The partition proceedings were disposed of by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade on 9th May, 1978 and the Khata was partitioned. By virtue of the partition proceedings the possession with respect to the partitioned Khewat was also taken by the petitioners on 6th May, 1979 vide Rapat Roznamcha No. 307 entered in the revenue records. This aspect of the that the parties had entered into their settled possession, could not be lost sight of by the Consolidation Authorities at the time of the passing of the orders Annexures P1, P2 and P3 Under Section 42 read with Section 43-A of the Act. Thus in the present writ petition the grouse of the petitioners is that the consolidation operation took place in the village in the year 1961-62 and continued upto the year 1979. No grievance was made out by anybody against the entry or the order made during the said consolidation operation. The prayer of the non-official respondents in their separate applications Under Section 42 and 43-A of the Act, which were made in the year 1978-79, was misconceived and it was erroneous on the part of respondent No. 2 to pass the order dated 21. 7. 1979 amending the Khataunis Paimaish Nos. 1216, 1217, 1218 and 1131 as there was no ambiguity incorporated to the Khatauni Paimaish and secondly the Consolidation Authorities could not ignore the partition order passed by the revenue authorities in the partition proceedings Under Section 111 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. The impugned orders Annexures P2 and P3 could not be passed with respect to Khatauni Paimaish Nos. 1216, 1217, 1218 and 1131 as those orders do not come within the purview of Section 43-A of the Act.

(3.) A rejoinder was also filed by the present petitioners and it was submitted that while filing the first application, which culminated in the order Annexure P1. The sole prayer which was made by the respondents was with respect to Khatauni Paimaish No. 1215 which was ordered to be corrected by virtue of Annexure P1 and the petitioners have no grouse with regard to that order. It has been denied by the petitioners that the respondents sought correction of the whole of the land in the first application. The first petition was Under Section 42 of the Act seeking correction of Khatauni Paimaish No. 1215, whereas the second petition was made Under Section 43-A of the Act for the correction of certain other numbers.