Dismissed

Trishla Devi v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Feb 2012CWP/4528/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order dismissing a plea to reopen land consolidation proceedings. The court held that no error of law or fact existed and a party cannot repeatedly raise deficiencies to reopen concluded proceedings from the 1950s.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; order of the Director Land Records quashing the dismissal stands affirmed.

Trishla Devi Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Civil Writ Petition No.4528 of 2009 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Civil Writ Petition No.4528 of 2009 Date of Order: 23.02.2012.

¶4

Trishla Devi ...Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab and others ..Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

¶8

Present: Mr. Vikas Mehsempuri, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶9

RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral)

¶10

The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 27.09.2006 (Annexure P-7), passed by the Director Land Records, Punjab, Jalandhar.

¶11

Counsel for the petitioner submits that as there was a shortfall in her allotment during consolidation, the petitioner filed an application for making good this deficiency. The Director, Land Records, should have allowed the application but has dismissed it on the ground that as a similar request was allowed on 18.05.1993, the petitioner cannot get the matter re-opened. The learned Director has ignored the fact that further deficiency was detected after the earlier order and, therefore, it gives rise to a fresh cause of auction.

¶12

We have heard counsel for the petitioner and find no reason to

¶13

Civil Writ Petition No.4528 of 2009 -2-

¶14

interfere with the order passed by the Director Land Records, Punjab, Jalandhar. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Consolidation Act') for making good deficiency in allotment made to her during consolidation. The Additional Director, Consolidation, accepted her plea and vide order dated 18.05.1993 remanded the matter to the consolidation officer. In compliance with the order of remand, the consolidation officer allotted additional land to the petitioner. The petitioner once again approached the Director Land Records for making good a further deficiency. The petition has been dismissed on the ground that deficiency has already been made good pursuant to the earlier order passed by the Additional Director Consolidation.

¶15

We find no error in law or in fact as would require inference. A party cannot be allowed to repeatedly raise pleas with respect to deficiency and to re-open proceedings that concluded in the 1950s. The plea with respect to further deficiency, should have been raised either during consolidation proceedings or in the earlier petition filed, under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act.

¶16

In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶17

(RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE

¶18

February 23, 2012 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) nt JUDGE

Trishla Devi v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Trishla Devi v. State of Punjab and Ors.

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

Gurcharan Singh and Others Vs Housing Commissioner Punjab

Shamsher Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Mohinder Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Hans Raj Vs Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Ambala and Ors.

Bhagwat Parshad and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Gram Panchayat Mattar Hithar, Thru Jagir Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others