GURDIAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are proprietors in village Kurranganwali, Tehsil Sirsa, district Hissar (now district Sirsa), have impugned the pro rata cut made from their holdings during the consolidation operations for meeting the demand for land for common purposes of the village including the land allotted for residential purposes of non-proprietors of the village, inter alia, on the ground that the said cut had been imposed in violation of the clear mandate of the provisions of rule 16(ii) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949 in that though Shamilat Deh land was available with the Panchayat in more than the requisite quantity, yet the pro rata cut was imposed on the proprietors and land was taken from their holdings for the common purposes in question.

(2.) In the return filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 (State of Haryana and the Consolidation Officer, respectively), it has been admitted in paras 8 and 12 thereof that prior to the consolidation operations in the village, the Gram Panchayat owned an area of 850 standard Kanals and 15 Marlas, to which an area of 89 standard Kanals stood added in lieu of the land of the Gram Panchayat which fell within the Phirni and allotted in the form of residential plots to proprietors and non-proprietors of the village (Panchayat like any other owner being entitled under the consolidation scheme to the allotment of an area equal to twice its area utilized for residential plots for other persons whether proprietors or non-proprietors agrarian labourers including Harijans) and thus the total land that the Gram Panchayat came to own in the village swelled to 939 standard Kanals and 15 Marlas; that out of the said area an area of 256 standard Kanals and 8 Marlas was reserved for the income of the said Gram Panchayat, leaving with the Gram Panchayat an area of 683 standard Kanals and 7 Marlas which was allotted to it during the repartition carried out in the village in pursuance of the consolidation scheme; that an area of 161 standard Kanals and 1 Marla was taken out from the common pool for common purposes of the village by imposing a pro rata cut on the holdings of the individual rightholders; that out of the said area only 48 standard Kanals and 14 Marlas was actually utilized for various common purposes; and that the remaining area of 112 standard Kanals and 7 Marlas was ordered to be redistributed pro rata amongst the rightholders concerned under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, on 14.7.1973 by the Assistant Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Rohtak.

(3.) The provisions of rule 16(ii) of the Rules are in the following terms :