AMAR SINGH Vs. DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, challenge is to order, Annexure P-3, passed by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana, vide which land has been taken away from the area of the petitioners and given to respondents 3 and 4.

(2.) In brief, the facts are that as a result of consolidation in the village, a major area belonging to the petitioners was allotted in Killa Nos. 1/25/2, 6/5/2, 50/24/1, 61/4 (old Khasra No. 1339). Likewise, respondents 3 and 4 along with other got their own major portion and other equivalent area on the basis of their previous possession. Teku son of Mohar Singh, namely predecessor-in-interest of respondents 3 and 4 was not satisfied with the major portion allotted to him and therefore, filed a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, (in short the Act) before the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, and claimed that he be given Chahi land in Square No. 2, 3, 4, 5 50/24 and 25. He also submitted that he be given Killa Nos. 6/5/2 and 1/25/1 as he had made improvement in the said Killas. The Additional Director vide order dated 12.5.1977 rejected the claim of Teku in regard to land in Square Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 50/24 and 25 and in regard to Killa No. 6/5/2 and 1/25/1 he observed that before consolidation, land falling in the said killa Nos. was jointly owned by him and other co-shares and so, any improvement by any co-sharer has no relevancy. However, the contention of Teku that he had installed a tubewell on the southern side of Killa No. 6/5/2 was found to be having some merit and therefore, he (Additional Director) remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer with a direction that he should visit the site and if he finds that a tubewell has been installed by Teku son of Mohar Singh since 1955, then a reasonable area alongwith the tubewell be given to him, but in case it is found that it is merely a pumping set by putting a pipe in the land and there is no Kotha along with the pipe, then no action be taken in that regard. Petition under Section 42 of the Act was thus, rejected except the direction in regard to tubewell. On remand, the Consolidation Officer inspected the site on 8.4.1987 in the presence of the parties and their statements were also recorded. On inspection, he found that the tubewell was installed after 1965 and the Kotha of bricks was built with earthen mortar and there was no electric connection and the same was being run with diesel engine. On the basis of this inspection, vide order dated 19.5.1987 the Settlement Officer rejected the claim of Teku son of Mohar in regard to Killa No. 1/25/2, 6/5/2.

(3.) Respondent No. 3 and 4 still filed a petition under Section 42 of the Act and notice of the same was given to the writ petitioners who brought to the notice of the Director Consolidation that the matter between the parties has already become final and no further directions are required to be given. Despite the objection taken by the writ petitioners, Director Consolidation accepted the petition of respondents 3 and 4 and allotted area falling in Killa No. 6/5/2 and 1/25/2 to respondents 3 and 4. In my view, the Director Consolidation, namely, respondent No. 1 committed a gross illegality in reviewing earlier order dated 12.5.1977. As noticed earlier, vide order dated 12.5.1977 the Additional Director had directed that a portion of land falling in Killa No. 6/5/2 and 1/25/2 may be given to respondents 3 and 4 if the tube-well was in stalled before 1955, otherwise no action should be taken. In pursuance of this order, the matter was examined by the Settlement Officer who on the basis of inspection rejected the claim of respondents 3 and 4 be cause he found that the alleged tubewell works on diesel engine and was installed much after 1955. The impugned order further shows that respondent No. 1 did not confine himself to the matter which was the subject-matter of order dated 12.5.1977, but also modified order dated 19.9.1975 passed by the Settlement Officer, which order had become final when respondent No. 1 vide order dated 12.5.1977 rejected all other contentions of respondents 3 and 4 and left only a short question regarding tube-well. Order dated 10.5.1988 impugned in this petition clearly is an order reviewing order dated 12.5.1977 and therefore, is not sustainable because there is no provision in the Act conferring powers upon respondent No. 1 to review his own order.