Writ petition challenging an order correcting khasra numbers in land records. The court held the correction was consistent with resolutions and dismissed the petition, finding no illegality.
Petition dismissed; order of correction by Director Consolidation upheld.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.5070 of 2010
Date of decision : 18.10.2011
Gurdass Ram and others
… Petitioners
Versus
Director, Land Record-cum-Consolidation Punjab and others
…Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: Mr.Ramneek Vasudeva, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr.Manohar Lall, Addl.AG., Punjab. Mr.H.S.Saini, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. Mr.Neeraj Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5.
Paramjeet Singh, J.
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 21.10.2009 (Annexure P-11) passed by respondent No.1-Director Land Records-cum Consolidation, Punjab, Jalandhar, whereby the petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holding (Consolidation) and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’), filed by respondent Nos.2 to 5 has been accepted by Director Consolidation
Brief facts of the case are that in the village Thana Bet, consolidation proceedings took place in the year 1967-68. It is alleged that the petitioners were allotted Khasra No.18//16/3 (2-13) and the ancestors of respondents No.2 and 3 along with other co-sharers were also allotted Khasra No.18//16/2 (2-13) and since then, the petitioners as well ancestors of respondents No.2 and 3 are in their respective possessions. It is alleged that
2
CWP No.5070 of 2010
respondents never raised any objection after the consolidation proceedings were over.
In the present case, the private respondents filed a petition before the Director Consolidation under Section 42 of the Act. It is pleaded case of the private respondents No.2 and 3 that at the time of consolidation proceedings, they were allotted land as per their entitlement. Vide Resolution No.78, Shiv Ram, Hakam and Hukma sons of Gujjar had been allotted Khasra No.18//16/3 and the petitioners and their ancestral were allotted khasra No.18//16/2 vide Resolution No.80. However, incorrect entry has come in Khatauni Paimaish (Annexure P-2). For the correction of entry, respondents approached the consolidation authorities being a clerical error which is permissible under Section 43-A of the Act.
After perusal of the record of the consolidation authorities, and the Aksh Musavi which is placed on record by the respondents as Annexure R- 2/3, the revenue Authority had ordered the correction in the Khatauni Paimaishs (Annexure P-2 and Annexure P-3).
Apparent looking at the vernacular of Annexures P-2 and P-3, it is clear that there is tampering in khasra Nos.18//6/2 and 18//16/3. The cuttings and alterations are apparent on record and are visible to the naked eye.
Without going into the question who made these cuttings and alterations, it would be appropriate to mention here that admittedly in Resolution No.78, dimensions of khasra No.18/16, have been shown on the South-West side which in fact is khasra No.16/3, whereas in Resolution No.80, the dimensions of khasra No.18/6 have been shown on South-East side which is khasra No.16/2 as per the resolutions entries in Khatauni Paimaish.
3
CWP No.5070 of 2010
This is also clear that passage to the petitioners has been given upto khasra No.17//29/4 adjacent to khasra No.18//16/2. As such, the question of having been given khasra No.18//16/3 to the petitioners does not arise as that khasra no. is adjoining to the land of the respondents. There is no change in the area of the khasra numbers but only correction is with regard to actual position of the khasra numbers which have been corrected by the competent authority in accordance with Resolutions which governs the preparation of Musavi as well Khatauni Paimaishs (Annexure P-2 and P-3). So, the order of correction is as per the related consolidation record.
As such we uphold the order passed by the Director consolidation effecting corrections in khasra numbers and we do not find any illegality, or irregularity and perversity in the said order. So the petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
( PARAMJEET SINGH) JUDGE
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE
18.10.2011 sd
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order of correction in khasra numbers by the revenue authority was illegal, irregular or perverse.
Whether the petition filed under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holding (Consolidation) Act, 1948 by the respondents was maintainable.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Gurdass Ram and others
Director, Land Record-cum-Consolidation Punjab
Shiv Ram, Hakam and Hukma sons of Gujjar
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
PARAMJEET SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
