KAHLA SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of the order dated 21.3.1983 passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, whereby land in petitioner's possession has been allotted to the original respondents No. 3 to 11, now represented by their legal representatives.

(2.) CONSOLIDATION proceedings were finalised in the year 1957-58. On 30.6.1982, respondents No. 3 to 11, filed a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the Jumla Mushtarka Malkan land and Siri Guru Teg Bahadur College, respondent No. 12, praying that as there was a short fall of 2 std. kanals, in the land allotted to them during consolidation, the shortfall be made good from the bachat land. Vide order dated 28.10.1982, Killa No. 48/6, 15, 49/10, 76/8, 4 were allotted to respondents No. 3 to 11. As the petitioner was in possession of this land as a proprietor/co-sharer in the Jumla Mushtarka Malkan, he filed a petition on 16.2.1983, praying that the above order be recalled. Vide order dated 18.3.1983, the Additional Director, Consolidation recalled the order dated 28.10.1982 and directed that the original application filed by respondents No. 3 to 11 be placed for rehearing.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that shortfall in the land allotted to respondents No. 3 to 11 is admitted. It is, however, argued that in case any land was to be retrieved from the Jumla Mushtarka Malkan, the Additional Director, Consolidation should have considered the entire land, referred to as Jumla Mushtarka Malkan and not the petitioner's land alone. The impugned order does not assign any reason for retrieving land from the petitioner and not from other co-sharers. It is submitted that though the Additional Director, Consolidation, has held that the petitioner is a co-sharer, but in the latter part of his order, he has erroneously held that the petitioner has no right over the disputed land. This apparent contradiction in the impugned order, as also the fact that the entire Jumla Mushtarka Malkan land was not taken into account for making good the deficiency in the land allotted to respondents No. 3 to 11, merits acceptance of the writ petition.