DHONKAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The petitioners are right-holders in village Raipura, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepore, petitioner No. 81 is a tenant. The petitioners are small landowners. Consolidation operations started in this village with the issuance of Punjab Government Notification, dated 14.4.1961 under Section 14(1) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The consolidation scheme was prepared by the Consolidation Officer on 25.2.1962. It was sanctioned by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) on 7.12.1962. Paragraph 13 of this Scheme provides that possession of right-holders will be changed at the time of repartition under Section 21 (1) of the Act with regard to vacant lands and possession of lands under crop will be changed after the crop is harvested. Copy of the said paragraph 13 is Annexure 'A'. It is alleged by the petitioners that under Section 14(1) of the Act, the petitioners were entitled to remain in possession of their old holdings till the commencement of the agricultural year following the preparation of the new record-of-rights and till the petitioners had exhausted all their remedies under the Act. Paragraph 13 of the Scheme thus contravenes the provisions of Sections 14(1) and 23 of the Act as it stood before the amendment affected by Punjab Act No. 25 of 1962, which came into force on 13.12.1962. It is further alleged that this amendment could not be given retrospective effect.

(3.) On repartition, the Consolidation Officer (Respondent 3) has, in pursuance of the illegal Scheme, ordered the right-holders of the village to change their possessions immediately and some right-holders are determined to enter into possession of new holdings in accordance with that illegal order. In the alternative, it is pleaded that even if the amending Act (No. 25 of 1962) applies to pending proceedings, it was incumbent upon the Consolidation Officer even in view of the amended Act to afford an opportunity to all the right-holders affected by the repartition, to come to a mutual agreement as to the date of change of possessions. Such an opportunity has not been afforded by respondent 3 to the right-holders, and he himself fixed the date for change of possessions in the Scheme itself before the repartition. This procedure is, therefore, illegal and without jurisdiction.