PIRTHI Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pirthi and ten other right-holders of village Asadpur have filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing order dated the 11th January, 1968, passed by the Assistant Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Rohtak, exercising powers under East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) In brief, the facts are that there were 1628 bighas 8 biswas of Shamlat land in village Asadpur. Out of this land 499 bighas 16 biswas is situated between the Bundh and the river Jumna, and is not fit for cultivation. The rest of the land is situate between the Bundh and the village. Because of the Bundh that Shamlat land has been saved from the ravages of the river. It is no more being inundated. Since this land is subject to the river action, it is excluded from the definition Shamlat land as given in the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.

(3.) The consolidation proceedings were started in this village towards the end of 1965. The right-holders of the village unanimously sought partition of these 1128 bighas 12 biswas of the land between the right-holders, who were the owners of this land. Prior to the consolidation, it was the joint ownership of the right-holders. So a provision was made in the scheme that this land should be partitioned among the right-holders according to their share. Since this land was cultivated by tenants, in order to safeguard their rights, it was provided that the tenants will get the area of their respective holdings under the new landowners. In fact, the 'taks' were to be carved out on the basis of the holdings of the tenants. It was provided that the tenants had to be allotted the new holdings and they were to be put in possession thereof and the rate of rent was also allowed to remain the same as before. The tenants at that time, did not make any objection. However, later on objections were filed to the same before the Settlement Officer. He thoroughly examined the case and went into the grievances raised by the tenants. The tenants contended that they apprehend that possession of their respective tenancies, will not be given to them. The Settlement Officer found no force in this contention. He held that the scheme was rather partial towards them, in somuchso, that the tenants were to be fitted according to their major portions in respect of all the tenancy area. The land was proposed to partitioned on the basis of the possession of the major portions of the tenants. So it was held that there was no substance in the apprehension of the tenants. It was also noticed that there was no bar to the partition of the Shamlat land even in the Wajib-ul-arz. So the objections were rejected by the Settlement Officer vide his order dated the 4th February, 1966. Dalel and other tenants filed a petition under Section 42 of the Act, which came up for hearing before Shri Ram Narain, Assistant Director, Consolidation of Holdings, exercising the powers under Section 42 of the Act. Before him also, the tenants raised two points, that by the impugned provision of the scheme, the tenants have been put under the individual right-holders as tenants-at-will, and as such, the right of the tenants-at-will have been extinguished and new rights of the owners have been created. It was contended that because they will be put under individual owners, so they could be easily ejected under the law, whereas as tenants under proprietary body, they could not be easily ejected. It was not denied that the right-holders of the village were owners of the land in dispute and they all wanted the same to be partitioned. The tenants did not raise any dispute to title. Their only grievance was that they will now be more easily evicted than before. These contention prevailed with the Assistant Director. He accepted the petition and deleted this provision of the scheme, which had provided for the partition of this land. Aggrieved by this order, 10 of the right-holders have moved this petition.