The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order that adjusted land holdings between villagers to rectify a clerical mistake in a 1958 consolidation scheme, holding that delay and the principle of natural justice do not bar correction of such errors.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Civil Writ Petition No. 1226 of 1984
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 1226 of 1984 Date of decision:- 19.2.2009
Dalip Singh and others
...petitioners
Versus
Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab and others
...respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Parveen Chander Goyal, Addl.A.G., Punjab for the State.
RANJIT SINGH J.
Being aggrieved against the order passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, rectifying a mistake in the allotment of land at the time of consolidation, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. The petitioners had remained unsuccessful in an appeal and that is how they have filed the present writ petition.
The consolidation in the village Nangli Tehsil and District Amritsar started in the year 1956 and was completed in the year 1958-59 whereas various right holders were given possession of their respective Taks after re-partition. The petitioners accordingly were in possession of their Taks allotted to them during consolidation. On 6.6.1980, respondent No. 5 Smt. Raj Karni moved an application under Section 42 before respondent No.1. Grievance was that no right holder in the village was impleaded as respondent. Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 1226 of 1984
2
No. 5 alleged that she had been given 'Kami' and 'Beshi' in C Block against the scheme and the same be rectified. Respondent No.1 after going through the record found that there was a mistake in the calculation of the area. He accordingly accepted the petition and remanded the case to respondent No.4 for rectification of the mistake after hearing the affected parties. This order is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1.
On the case being remanded, respondent No. 4 took up the matter and found that there was shortage of 4 kanal 16 marlas standard in C Block of respondent No. 5. He also found that there was Beshi to the extent of 0-13 marlas standard in Block C of the petitioner. Respondent No. 4 had granted opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and rejected their contention and ordered that area to the extent of 0-16 standard kanals (6 kanal and 12 marla) be withdrawn from the petitioners and given to respondent No. 5 in Block C. Further direction was given to the effect that Kami to the extent of 4 kanal standard in the Kurra of Smt. Raj Karni be made good from the Taks of other right holders. A true copy of this order is annexed with Annexure P-2.
The petitioners filed an appeal against this order before respondent No. 3 pleading that they were in possession of killa No. 112/16/2 measuring 6 kanal and 12 marlas since re-partition proceedings had been carried out during consolidation and that they have planted a garden on the said land. The submission further was that C Block area was given to them in terms of the scheme and the petitioner accordingly pleaded that deficiency of Raj Karni be made
Civil Writ Petition No. 1226 of 1984
3
good from the holding of respondents No. 6 to 13 as they had been allotted excess area in B and C Block. The petitioners also gave the details of holding of respondents No. 6 to 13 besides pleading that they have also been given less area to the extent of 0-5 marla standard in Block B as well. The appeal, however, was dismissed on 24.5.1982. Respondent No. 3 observed that he had simply carried out the directions given by respondent No.1.
Thereafter the petitioners filed an appeal under Section 21(4) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to the 'Consolidation Act') Their main plea was that the impugned order was illegal and that they had planted orchard which aspect has not been kept in view. Rather they also sought some rectification about their allotment which statedly had not been given to them as per their entitlement in Block B. This appeal, however, was also dismissed on 5.1.1984. Thereafter the petitioners filed a petition under Section 42 of the Act. Plea was that the petitioners had been fitted in accordance with the scheme. As per this scheme they could have proved a standard kanals as Beshi in Block C. They had only excess to the extent of 0-16 kanals. Plea further was no compensation in respect of the fruit trees had been determined and nor this fact was considered while effecting changes. This revision was also dismissed on 6.2.1984. The petitioners have accordingly challenged Annexure P-2 to P-5 through the writ petition.
Notice was issued and the dispossession of the petitioners was stayed. Subsequently the writ petition has been
Civil Writ Petition No. 1226 of 1984
4
admitted. Reply on behalf of official respondents has been filed and the plea raised by the petitioners have been controverted. The perusal of the reply would show that Dalip Singh, petitioner No. 1, was present when order dated 2.9.1981 was passed. He submitted his written arguments, copy of which has been annexed with the petition as Annexure R-1. At that time, he did not plead anything about the Orchard having been planted. Subsequently in the appeal, this plea, however, was raised. In fact the plea raised by the petitioners before the authority was that the deficiency of Raj Karni made good from the holding of respondents No. 9 to 13 and not from respondents No. 6 to 13. The assertion of the petitioners that they had been given 5 standard marlas less in Block B was found factually incorrect as the Kami of the petitioner in Block B have been made good by consolidation Officer vide his order dated 2.9.1981. The action of the authorities in withdrawing the land measuring 16 standard marlas from C Block of the writ petitioners has been justified and it is also pointed out that through order dated 6.2.1984 (Annexure P-5) consolidation Officer had returned 3 standard marlas of C Block land to the writ petitioners vide his order dated 19.12.1984. It is thus stated that land measuring 13 standard marlas of Block C land has been withdrawn from the writ petitioners which was in excess with them. Finding also is that Raj Karni had a shortage of 4 kanal and 16 marlas standards in C Block and accordingly 13 marla standard has been withdrawn from the petitioners. Area measuring 3 standard kanal of C Block has been withdrawn from respondents No. 9 to 13 and given to Smt. Raj Karni
5
Civil Writ Petition No. 1226 of 1984
vide order dated 9.12.1984. Thus, it is stated that respondents No. 9 to 13 have also been left untouched. It is also stated that the impugned order are not in violation of principle of natural justice as pleaded. It is a pure and simple case of correcting a mistake.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Counsel for the petitioners primarily made two fold submissions before me. He would submit that the application for making the deficiency was filed after 22 years of the finalisation of the consolidation scheme. During this period, the petitioners had developed this land and made cultivable where they had also planted an orchard. He would also say that the opportunity of hearing was not provided to the petitioners by the authorities and thus the order passed and impugned in the writ petition would suffer from the violation of principle of natural justice.
On the other hand, State counsel would justify the impugned order and would contest the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. I am not inclined to accept the plea raised by the counsel for the petitioners. It is noticed that respondent Raj Karni had suffered a deficiency at the time of allotment of her Tak during consolidation. She, accordingly, moved an application which was considered and the perusal of the record shows that there was a mistake in calculation of the area in the blocks. She was given 8-6 KM but it is shown as 10-4 KM. This was a clerical mistake and block wise Kami Beshi thus became 13-5 KM. This was found to be against the scheme and accordingly the petition was accepted. The case was remanded back before the consolidation Officer, who was required to decide after affording opportunity of hearing to all the
6
Civil Writ Petition No. 1226 of 1984
affected persons. It is in this background that the deficiency of Raj Karni has been made up partly from the petitioners and partly from respondents No. 6 to 13.
Counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any infirmity in the view taken by the authorities. It is not disputed before me that there was a mistake at the time of consolidation whereby respondent, Smt. Raj Karni, suffered deficiency in the allotment. It is also not much in dispute that the some excess land was allotted to the petitioners as well as respondents No. 6 to 13. Thus the authorities have acted to correct the clerical mistake that had crept into the consolidation proceedings. Since in this context it can be stated that the delay, if any, on the part of respondent, Raj Karni would be immaterial. There is no limitation provided under Section 42 of the Act, rather it makes a provision for filing an appropriate application any time. Since it was a case of correction of a mistake, delay having regard to these facts and circumstances should not be allowed to stand in the way of respondents to move this application. It is not seen to be resulting in any illegality or infirmity. It is also not seen to be an arbitrary exercise of powers while entertaining the petition under Section 42 of the Act. Accordingly, the delay having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case would be immaterial. In this regard, reference can be made to the cases of Kheman Vs. Additional Director C/H, Ferozepore and others 1970 P.L.J. 494, Kundan Singh Vs. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jullundar and another AIR 1982 Punjab and Haryana 538, Jasmer
7
Civil Writ Petition No. 1226 of 1984
Kaur & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. , 1983 (II) All India Land Law Reporter 428, Darshan Singh and others Vs. Mohinder Kaur (now deceased) and others 1986 P.L.J. 4, Chetan Singh Vs. Addl. Director, Land Holdings, Pb. , 1987 R.R.R. 113, Harcharan Singh and others Vs. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings Punjab and Ors. , 1991 P.L.J. 91, Zile Singh Vs. Chunni Lal , 1993 (1) R.R.R. 570, Gram Panchayat, Shitabgarh Vs. Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Pb. , 1992 (1) PLR 616 and Gram Panchayat Kakran Vs. Additional Director of Consolidation and another , 1998 (1) Revenue Law Reporter 170.
I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order which would call for any interference . The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
February 19, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of over 22 years in filing an application under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act to rectify a clerical mistake in land allotment bars the writ petition.
Whether the impugned order withdrawing excess land from petitioners to correct a shortage for another right holder violates the principles of natural justice.
Whether the High Court can interfere with the consolidation officer's decision correcting a clerical mistake after delays in seeking relief.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kundan SinghReferred¶37
Kundan Singh Vs. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jullundar and another AIR 1982 Punjab and Haryana 538
Jasmer KaurReferred¶37
Jasmer Kaur & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. 1983 (II) All India Land Law Reporter 428
Darshan SinghReferred¶37
Darshan Singh and others Vs. Mohinder Kaur (now deceased) and others 1986 P.L.J. 4
Chetan SinghReferred¶37
Chetan Singh Vs. Addl. Director, Land Holdings, Pb. 1987 R.R.R. 113
Harcharan SinghReferred¶37
Harcharan Singh and others Vs. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings Punjab and Ors. 1991 P.L.J. 91
Zile SinghReferred¶37
Zile Singh Vs. Chunni Lal 1993 (1) R.R.R. 570
Gram Panchayat, ShitabgarhReferred¶37
Gram Panchayat, Shitabgarh Vs. Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Pb. 1992 (1) PLR 616
Gram Panchayat KakranReferred¶37
Gram Panchayat Kakran Vs. Additional Director of Consolidation and another 1998 (1) Revenue Law Reporter 170
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dalip Singh
Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings Punjab
RanJit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
