BACHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner impugns in this writ petition order dated 8.7.1982 Annexure, P/7, passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, respondent No. 2 and further impugns the order dated 10.9.1982. Annexure P18 of respondent No. 2, which is in fact consequential to the order Annexure P/7.

(2.) A petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') was filed by Gurmukh Singh and others, respondent Nos. 4 to 8 as the successor-in-interest of one Rura before respondent No. 2. It was alleged therein that Lala and Rura two brothers, were co-sharers having half share each in their joint Khewat No. 140 measuring 85 Standard Kanals. 10 Standard Marlas. Out of this an area of 35 Standard Kanals 15 Standard Marlas had earlier been allotted by the Custodian from the share of Lala who was a Muslim evacuee to different persons. During consolidation of holdings, the consolidation staff inadvertently entered both Lala and Rura as joint owners in equal shares in respect of the entire land of 85 Standard Kanals 13 Standard Marlas. In this way the land allotted by the Custodian from the share of Lala to the extent of 35 Standard Kanals 15 Standard Marlas was not accounted for from his account. Thus the Consolidation staff erroneously made double allotment to the share of Lala and thereby Rura suffered loss of 17 Standard Kanals 5 Standard Marlas. It was contended that an area of 35 Standard Kanals 15 Standrad Marlas ought to have been excluded from the share of Lala. It was, thus, sought to be made clear that the Consolidation staff wrongly allotted 42 Standard Kanals 15 Standard Marlas to each of them. Actually 7 Standard Kanals Standard Marla only could be allotted to Lala, the evacuee and the remaining land ought to have been allotted to Rura. It was brought out that as a result of this mistake Lala got 17 Standard Kanals 10 Standard Marla in excess. It was further maintained that the heirs of Rura are in possession to the land legitimately falling to their share but due to the mistake committed on the record the Custodian wrongfully allotted 42 Standard Kanals 15 Standard Marlas instead of 7 Standard Kanals Standard Marla from the total Khewat to Bachan Singh son of Santa Singh (the petitioner herein). This allotment was questioned and it was contended that the same was illegal and was the result of the mistake in the Consolidation record. They sought rectification of this mistake in the record and prayed that from the entire Khewat, Lala evacuee should be shown as owner of 7 Standard Kanals Standrad Marlas and respondent Nos. 4 to 8 as the heirs of Rura should he shown as owner for the remaining area of 42 Standard Kanals 15 Standard Marlas. The petition so filed under Section 45 of the Act was allowed by respondent No. 2. He directed rectification of the mistake and ordered consequent changes with regard to the allotment of share of 42 Standard Kanals 15 Standard Marlas to them leaving 7 Standard Kanals 10 Standard Marlas as the share of Lala evacuee.

(3.) The main complaint of the petitioner is that he is the allottee of 38 Kanals 12 Marlas of land from the Custodian. The land vested in the Custodian being the share the of Lala evacuee. The impugned order Annexure P/7 has been passed by respondent No. 2 at the back of the petitioner. He has been directly affected by this order as his right to the land allotted to him by the Custodian has been put into jeopardy. He no doubt states that he had made an application before respondent No. 2 on 17.6.1982 for being impleaded as a respondent. That application was dismissed in his absence. A the same time it was the duty of respondent Nos. 4 to 8 to implead him as a respondent to the application under Section 42 of the Act as they had alleged that the Custodian had wrongly allotted the land to him.