YASHIN Vs. DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Costs have been paid. Return has been filed.

(2.) The petitioners are members of the proprietary body of village Garhi Bhalal. The predecessor-in-interest of respondent Nos. 2 to 6 was an occupancy tenant of some shamilat land owned by the proprietary body. By virtue of the provisions of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952, the predecessor-in-interest of respondent Nos. 2 to 6 became an owner of that land. Consolidation operations took place in the year 1967 obviously at a time when the predecessor-in-interest of respondent Nos. 2 to 6 had become a proprietor in the village in substitution of the proprietary body qua that land. He thus asserted at the time of the consolidation that as a member of the proprietary body, he was entitled to a share in the shamilat land. It appears that he was given some share and put in possession thereof as is the case of the petitioner. A petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act was moved before the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, challenging allotment of land to the predecessor-in-interest of respondent Nos. 2 to 6 on the ground that being an occupancy tenant, maturing to an owner by virtue of law, he did not become entitled to a share in the shamilat land. This found favour with the Additional Director, as is evident from order, Annexure P-1 dated 27.3.1968. As goes the case of the petitioners, this order was challenged by respondent Nos. 2 to 6 in Civil Court and they had obtained during the while an order of maintenance of status quo regarding possession from the Director, as is evident from the order, Annexure P-2, passed on 21.8.1987. The petitioners now claim that the same was dismissed though the respondents say that it was dismissed on technical grounds. Then, one of the proprietors moved a petition before the Director to recall the order of status quo and deprive respondent Nos. 2 to 6 of the possession of shamilat land which had been obtained by them as co-sharers of the proprietary body. The application was rejected by the Director on the ground that earlier order, Annexure P-2, had not been passed at the instance of the party moving and thus vide order, Annexure P-3, dated 20.7.1988, he dismissed the application.

(3.) It has now been urged by Mr. Chander Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners that a direction need be issued to the Director requiring him to deliver possession of the land to the land to the proprietary body and the petitioners are members of that proprietary body. We asked him whether he wants it on the basis of partition or otherwise but he sticks to the view that any one proprietor can claim possession from the respondents on behalf of the proprietary body. In the next breath, Mr. Chander Singh says that since the other shamilat land has been distributed among the share-holders, the share of the petitioners comes to about 79 kanals of land and respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are in possession of 79 kanals of land, deprival of which would satisfy the claim of the petitioners. He further says that the claim of the petitioners be treated individual as also common with the proprietary body.