Dismissed

Lachhman Singh etc. v. Addl.Director C/H etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Aug 2008CWP/2353/1985

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filing under the East Punjab Holdings Act. The petitioner challenged an order whereby the Additional Director, Consolidation, recalled an ex-parte decision to partition Gram Panchayat land and directed a fresh hearing. The Court held the higher authority acted correctly in ensuring representation for the public body custodian.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed the writ petition; directed the Additional Director, Consolidation to decide the application within three months.

Lachhman Singh etc. Vs Addl.Director C/H etc. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

CWP No.2353 of 1985

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

CWP No.2353 of 1985 Date of Decision: 18.8.2008

¶5

Lachhman Singh and others

¶6

.....Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Addl.Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Chandigarh and another ....Respondents

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA

¶10

¶11

Present : Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.N.S. Dandiwal, Advocate for respondent no.2.

¶12

RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral)

¶13

The petitioners, impugn an order dated 21.2.1984 passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation and Holdings, Punjab, Chandigarh, whereby the order dated 28.11.1980 passed by his predecessor was recalled and it was directed that the original case would be decided on merits.

¶14

The petitioners, filed an application under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') in the year 1978, with a prayer that though repartition had taken place on 20.6.1964, no area could be reserved for the income of the Gram Panchayat. During the pendency of the application, the Additional Director, Consolidation, directed the service of notice on the Sarpanch and the Panches. On 9.3.1979, Labh Singh, Member Panchayat appeared on behalf of respondent no.2 and opposed the application. The case was, however, adjourned to 11.5.1979. Thereafter, on

¶15

CWP No.2353 of 1985 2

¶16

7.6.1979, as no one appeared on behalf of the Gram Panchayat, the Sarpanch was ordered to be summoned for the next date. The summons were allegedly received by the Gram Panchayat but no one put in appearance on behalf of the Gram Panchayat. The Additional Director, Consolidation, vide order dated 28.11.1980 accepted the petition filed by the petitioners and directed redistribution of land allotted to the Gram Panchayat amongst the right holders, in accordance with their share. The Gram Panchayat, thereafter, filed an application for recalling of the aforementioned order, which was allowed by the Additional Director, Consolidation, vide order dated 21.2.1984.

¶17

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is illegal, as the Gram Panchayat was duly served. A Member Panchayat appeared on behalf of the Gram Panchayat and, therefore, the finding recorded by the Additional Director, Consolidation, that the Gram Panchayat was not granted an adequate opportunity, is factually incorrect. It is prayed that as the Additional Director, Consolidation, failed to peruse the original file, which clearly evidences service on the Gram Panchayat, the order dated 28.11.1980 should not have been set aside.

¶18

Counsel for respondent no.2, however, submits that a perusal of the record discloses that though the Gram Panchayat was served and Labh Singh, Member Panchayat appeared on behalf of the Gram Panchayat, but subsequently no one came forward to defend the Gram Panchayat. It is prayed that this error on the part of the Gram Panchayat was duly considered and no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners, if the entire dispute is decided on merits. The Gram Panchayat is the custodian of public property and to deprive the Gram Panchayat of ownership of public property

¶19

¶20

CWP No.2353 of 1985

¶21

without proper adjudication would be unjust. It is further submitted that even otherwise, the petition filed by respondents was not maintainable, as the question whether the land in dispute vest or does not vest in the Gram Panchayat, cannot be decided by the Director, Consolidation, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 42 of the Act. The jurisdiction, to decide such a dispute vests with the Collector exercising powers under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

¶23

The petitioners prayed, in their petition filed under Section 42 of the Act, that the land reserved, occupied and managed by the Gram Panchayat, could not be so reserved in consolidation proceedings and should, therefore, be partitioned amongst right holders. The Additional Director, Consolidation, vide order dated 28.11.1980 accepted this prayer and held by an ex-parte order that as land cannot be reserved for the income of the Gram Panchayat and the land so reserved, would have to be distributed amongst the right holders. The Gram Panchayat filed an application under Section 42 of the Act for recalling of this order. Vide order dated 21.2.1984, this order was recalled. The petitioners submission that the Gram Panchayat was duly served and was duly represented through a Member Panchayat, though apparently correct, would not warrant acceptance of the writ petition. The Gram Panchayat is the custodian of public lands. If the Gram Panchayat remained unrepresented, the Additional Director, Consolidation, was well within his powers to call upon the Disstrict Development and Panchayat Officer or the Block Development Panchayat Officer, to secure the presence of the Sarpanch or a

¶24

¶25

CWP No.2353 of 1985

¶26

representative of the Gram Panchayat. While dealing with matters relating to public property, more particularly, lands belonging to Gram Panchayats, tribunals must exercise a greater degree of caution, as cases, where the Sarpanch and in certain cases the entire Gram Panchayat colludes with right holders, enabling them to misappropriate panchayat land, are to well known to recount. As the order passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation, setting aside the ex-parte order does not suffer from any error, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. Even otherwise, the order merely directs a fresh decision of the application filed by the petitioners. Dismissed.

¶27

The Additional Director, Consolidation and Holdings, Punjab, Jalandhar, is directed to decide the application, within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Parties would be at liberty to raise all such legal objections, as may be available to them, in accordance with law including the question whether the Additional Director, Consolidation has any jurisdiction to entertain the petition, in view of the provisions of Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961..

¶28

Parties are directed to appear before the Additional Director, Consolidation, Punjab, on 25.9.2008.

¶29

(RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE

¶30

18.8.2008 GS

Lachhman Singh etc. v. Addl.Director C/H etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lachhman Singh etc. v. Addl.Director C/H etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Sharma Vs Shweta Sharma

Ram Kumar Redhu Vs State of Hry. and Anr.

Baldev Singh Vs Sher Singh

Sardari Lal and Others Vs State of Haryana etc.

Gurnam Singh etc. Vs Addl. Director C/H Punjab etc.

Gram Panchayat of Vill Panwan Vs Addl. Director Consolidation of Holdings