High Court held the Additional Director, Consolidation failed to address an eight-year delay in filing a petition and ignored an application for land reservation. The impugned order was set aside and matter remitted.
Order dated 22.3.1988 set aside; matter remitted to Additional Director, Consolidation, Haryana for adjudication afresh.
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.
Civil Writ Petition No.5977 of 1988 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 5977 of 1988 Date of Decision 8.3.2011
Maddu Ram and another
..Petitioners.
Versus
Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings and another ..Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA
Present:- Mr. Mahavir Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Paramjit Batta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for respondent No.1.
None for respondent No.1.
RAJIVE BHALLA, J. (ORAL)
The petitioners challenge an order dated 22.3.1988 passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana, Chandigarh.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that Dalla Ram, father of respondent No.2, filed an application, before the Consolidation Officer to reserve 17 Bighas of land out of pre consolidation survey No. 17. The Consolidation Officer accepted this request and reserved this land for Dalla Ram's sons, namely, Pit Ram and Mange Ram respondent No.2. The Consolidation Officer partitioned the land and allotted separate killa numbers to the petitioners and respondent No.2. After a lapse of 8 years, respondent No.2 filed a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) alleging that the land was allotted to the petitioners in collusion with the Consolidation Officer. The Additional Director, Consolidation accepted the petition and held that as the
Civil Writ Petition No.5977 of 1988 2
Consolidation Officer had no jurisdiction to disregard the provisions of Scheme of Consolidation, to vary the scheme or reserve land for any particular land-owner, and to order the reservation of land out of preconsolidation survey No.17.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Additional Director, Consolidation has noted the fact that reservation was made, out of preconsolidation survey No.17, on an application filed by Dalla Ram, father of respondent No.2, but has not dealt with this aspect while passing the impugned order. It is further submitted that as the petitioners and respondent No.2 were co-sharers, the Consolidation Officer rightly partitioned the land in view of power conferred by Section 16-A of the Act. The finding recorded in the impugned order that the Consolidation Officer had no jurisdiction to partition the land has been recorded by disregarding the provisions of Section 16-A of the Act.
Counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, supports the order passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation by arguing that the Consolidation Officer had no jurisdiction to allot land to the petitioners and to order reservation of land from pre consolidation survey No.17. The Additional Director, Consolidation, therefore, rightly accepted the petition filed by respondent No.2.
A perusal of the impugned order reveals that while allowing the petition, the Additional Director, Consolidation, has noticed that Dalla Ram, father of respondent No.2, filed an application for the reservation of land out of pre-consolidation survey No.17 but has failed to deal with this important aspect. The Additional Director also lost sight of the fact that the petition under Section 42 of the Act was filed after eight years from the date of re-partition and then also without any clear or cogent explanation for delay. The power conferred by Section 42 of the Act to call for and examine the record of any proceedings or the legality of an order has to be
Civil Writ Petition No.5977 of 1988 3
invoked within reasonable time. The Additional Director, Consolidation, should have dealt with the delay and the consequences of the application filed by Dalla Ram praying for reservation of land from pre-consolidation survey No.17. In the absence of any such consolidation, the writ petition is allowed, order dated 22.3.1988 is set aside and matter is remitted to the Additional Director, Consolidation, Haryana, for adjudication afresh.
Parties are directed to appear before the Additional Director, Consolidation, Haryana, Chandigarh on 10.5.2011.
8.3.2011 VK
( RAJIVE BHALLA ) JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Additional Director, Consolidation properly invoked the power under Section 42 despite an eight-year delay without explanation.
Whether the Consolidation Officer had jurisdiction to partition land under Section 16-A of the Act.
Whether the Additional Director, Consolidation dealt with the application by the father for reservation of land before passing the impugned order.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Maddu Ram
Pit Ram
Mange Ram
Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings
Rajive Bhalla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
