HARI SINGH Vs. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders of the Settlement Officer and the Director of Consolidation dated May 10, 1977 and January 20, 1978, respectively.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that the petitioners and the private respondents are residents of village Ghanghala, District Bhiwani where consolidation of holdings were started under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioners as well as the private-respondents were recorded joint owners of Shamilat Patti Bhura which was comprised in Khewat No. 29 and measured 442 Bighas. The private-respondents made an application before the Consolidation Officer that the Patti be divided amongst the co-sharers. He formed an opinion that the land could not be partitioned as some of the co-sharers were not willing to get it partitioned. Consequently, he forwarded the application to the Settlement Officer with the above recommendation. The Settlement Officer did not agree with the recommendation of the Consolidation Officer and held that no question of title arose. Accordingly, he ordered that the land be partitioned. The private respondents filed a petition under Section 42 of the Act before the Director Consolidation of Holdings who dismissed the same and affirmed the order of the Settlement Officer. The petitioners have challenged the orders of the Settlement Officer and the Director through this writ petition.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that recommendation of the Consolidation Officer was legal and the Settlement Officer could not interfere with it. He argues that a question of title did arise in the case and the consolidation authorities had no other alternative but to decline the partition and refer the other party to the Civil Court. In support of his contention he referred to Om Parkash Goel v. The State of Haryana and others, 1968 PunLJ 94, and Faiz Bakhsh and others v. Niamat Khan and others,1918 AIR(Lah) 186