NASIB KAUR Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TARA Singh and Maghar Singh sons of Sohan Singh residents of village Machhi Ke, Tehsil Moga, District Faridkot filed a petition under section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act') claiming that they are the owners of certain Khasra Nos. in the village and that a path to the takes of the respondents therein, including the petitioner herein, is running at the spot through Killa Nos. 41/12 and 13 and that path No. 813 has wrongly been shown in Killa Nos. 41/8,9 and 12 which was never in existence. They thus prayed that path No. 813 in Khasra Nos. 41/8,9 and 12 be deleted from the record and in that place, path in Killa No. 41//12 and 13 may be provided which is already in existence. The Additional Director Consolidation Punjab in exercise of his powers under the Act came to the conclusion that it was a fit case where spot can be inspected and a path which is in use on the spot should be allowed in papers. He consequently accepted the petition and remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer, Mohali with a direction that he should visit the spot and see which path out of the two is in service. It was also directed that he should hear all the interested persons and decide the case strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Scheme. The Consolidation Officer appointed Kanungo Consolidation and directed him to visit the spot and report the matter to him. On receipt of the report from the Kanungo, the Consolidation Of- ficer, Mohali effected certain changes by his order dated 9th May, 1995, Annexure P6. Nasib Kaur the petitioner in this petition aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer filed a petition under section 42 of the Act before the Additional Director Consolidation, Punjab. Her petition was dismissed by order dated 12th July, 1994 of the Additional Director remanding the case to the Consolidation Officer has become final and thus he finds no merit in the petition. Hence this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at the instance of Nasib Kaur.

(2.) IN response to notice of motion, respondents have put in appearance. Rely has been filed only by respondent No. 4.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we are of the opinion that the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents by reference to any material on record could not show that the petitioners before the Additional Director, Consolidation, including the present petitioner were shareholders at the time of consolidation. In none of the corresponding paragraphs of the written statement, the fact as alleged in the writ petition was disputed. Once that is so, the petitioner and Jagir Singh (one of the petitioners before the Additional Director Consolidation) had no right to move the Consolidation especially when some litigation in that behalf had commenced before the Civil Court to which the father of the private respondents was a party. The Director, Consolidation could entertain an application in respect of limited matters and that too, at the instance of the right-holders at the time of consolidation. The persons acquiring title to the property after consolidation have in our opinion no right to approach the Director Consolidation under the Act for the type of relief granted by the impugned order, especially when the application was moved after about 40 years of the conclusion of the consolidation proceedings. No reason whatsoever has been given by Additional Director to condone this delay either.