KANHYA SINGH Vs. CONSOLIDATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent from the judgment and order, dated the l3th October, 1964, of a learned Single Judge dismissing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by twenty-one appellants, to which the two respondents were the Consolidation Officer of Bahadurgarh Circle at Jhajjar in Rohtak District, and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) at Rohtak, respondents 1 and 2, who are also respondents in this appeal.

(2.) The appellants challenged the validity and legality of the scheme of consolidation making reservations of which the list is given in paragraph 3 of their petition. At this stage two matters alone are in dispute. Those are items 1 to 5 which relate to reservation of area for roads. In the case of each item, the name of the village from which the road starts and the name of the village to which it goes is given and the village of the appellants apparently falls in between. The other matter that is for consideration is item 26 relating to reservation for 'water channel Rewari, Khara minor'. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that it has been repeatedly held by this Court that village road and paths are within the definition of the expression 'common purpose', as in Section 2(bb)(iii) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (East Punjab Act 50 of 1948), and so also are 'village watercourses or water channels', covering in this case 'Rewari Khara minor'. No other reservation apparently was questioned before the learned Single Judge at Me time of hearing of the appellants' petition. On this approach the learned Judge dismissed the appellants' petition.

(3.) In this case the learned counsel for the appellants has first referred to Gurudas Singh-Lakha Singh v. Director of Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, 1964 AIR(P&H) 117 in which it was held that reservation of land for water channels could not be described a common purpose within the scope of East Punjab Act 50 of 1948, and that the landowners who wanted to take water from canal through channels could make their own arrangements and those who did not do so could not be forced to part with their land. The decision in that case was given on the 28th January, 1963, but by East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Amendment and Validation Act. 1963 (Punjab Act 34 of 1963), which came into force on the 19th November. 1963, a date after the decision in Gurudas Singh-Lakha Singh v. Director of Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, , in clause (bb) of Section 2 of East Punjab Act 50 of 1948, sub-clause (iii) has been added, which reads "village roads and paths; village drains; village wells; ponds or tanks; village watercourses or water channels" (the other matters entered are not material here). So what has to be seen is whether items 1 to 5 relating to reservation for roads as given in paragraph 3 of the appellants' petition, concerns 'village roads and paths', and item 26 relating to water-channel Rewari Khara minor' concerns 'village watercourses or water-channels ?' If the answer in both cases is in the affirmative, the petition of the appellants has been rightly dismissed, but if otherwise, to the extent the answer is otherwise, the appellants will succeed in their appeal.