MANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioners are invoking the certiorarial jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India to quash the order of the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings dated 24 11. 1981 vide Annexure P. 4.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, they and the 2nd respondent are residents of village Jaitton and a notification Under Section 14 (1) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 was published on 28 9. 1953 and the consolidation proceedings were completed in the village on 24. 10. 1969 and subsequent schemes were also finalised by 13. 10 1978. He further averred that one Harnam Kaur and Bikkar Singh owned the land jointly in the village Jaitton, in equal shares and Harnam Kaur sold her share to the petitioners by registered sale deed dated 3. 6. 1980 and the remaining portion of the land was inherited by the 2nd respondent after the death of his father Bikkar Singh. Thus the petitioners and the 2nd respondent became co-owners. It is further averred that during consolidation a Schemi Khal marked as 'ab' and a Ploti Khal marked as 'cdefg' as shown in sketch which is annexed as P-2 to the writ petition have been provided and the same were in existence since a long time. While so the 2nd respondent made an -application Under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act. 1948 on 17. 6. 1981 to pro- vide a new watercourse along with the common boundary of Killa Nos. 123/21 and 20 which is marked as 'he' in Annexure P-2. The 1st respondent, Namely the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, accepted the application of 2nd respondent on 24. 11. 1981 without notice to the petitioners and ordered a water channel be provided along with common boundary of Killa Nos. 123/21 and 20 from the land of the petitioners by his order Annexure P. 4. Challenging the said order Annexure P-4, the petitioners approached this Court for quashing the same.

(3.) THERE is no dispute that the existing watercourse has been changed by the Additional Director of Consolidation of Holdings. Punjab by the impugned order dated 24. 11. 1981. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, has no power either to provide or change the watercourse already in existence and included in the consolidation proceedings which became final. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, Section 42 of the Act does not apply and the Additional Director has no jurisdiction to amend or change the watercourse. He relied upon a decision of this Court in Harbeant Singh and Ors. v. The Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab and Ors. , 1973 PLJ 374, wherein it has been held as follows :