BALDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 31. 3. 1995 Annexure P-4 by Deputy Commissioner- cum-District Collector, Kapurthala and order dated 26. 4. 1996 Annexure P5 passed by the Joint Development Commissioner (IRD) Punjab ignoring the order dated 2. 11. 1995 Annexure P1 passed by Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jalandhar.

(2.) FACTS of the case are that the land in dispute is comprised in Khewat Khatauni No. 130/213, Khasra No. l73 (3-10), 174 (6-0), 181 (3-4), 182 (6-0), 183 (6-2 ). The case of the petitioner is that prior to consolidation the land in dispute was described as Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Khewat in the revenue record. During the consolidation some land was used for common purposes and the remaining was shown as Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Khewat. The land in question was Banjar. The petitioner spent huge amount on its development and made the same cultivable. He is in possession of the land in dispute prior to 1950 and the Gram Panchayat has no right or concern with the land in dispute. The land in dispute vests in the petitioner and the Central Government. Petitioner filed an application under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings Punjab with a prayer that the land in question be shown as the ownership of the petitioner or that of the Central Government and that he be also shown in possession of the land in dispute. His case further is that in the column of cultivation land is described as Makbooja Malkan, as such right-holders are recorded to be in possession of the land and Gram Panchayat has nothing to do with it. That petition was accepted by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings vide his order dated 2. 11. 1995 Annexure P-1 and remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer with the directions that he should thoroughly scrutinise the record and determine the shares of local Malkans and that of Central Government and accordingly correct the entries in the revenue record. It is further pleaded that the petitioner who is tenant on the Khasra Number mentioned in the record should be shown as such in respect of the share of Central Government.

(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.