BHAGTA Vs. DAULAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is not disputed that the land in dispute was allotted to the respondents as a consequence of repartition in consolidation proceedings. The respondents were not put in possession of the same by the Consolidation Officer though he was required by the statute to do so. Reference in this connection may be made to Section 23(1) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act. The respondents filed a suit for possession of the land which was decreed.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellants urges that since it was within the jurisdiction of the Consolidation Officer to restore possession of the land to the respondents as a consequence of repartition, it was not open to them to file a civil suit for possession. There is no merit in this submission. It is statutory duty of the Consolidation Officer to put the allottees of the land in possession thereof and if he does not perform his duty it does not mean that the rights to property of the private citizens should be put in jeopardy. Once the land is allotted and the consolidation of holdings has come to an end, the citizens become entitled to avail of the remedies which can be made available to them by ordinary Courts. There is no force in this appeal which is ordered to be dismissed.