Dismissed

Ram Sarup and Others v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Feb 2013CWP/3323/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the dismissal of a petition regarding land rectification by the Consolidation Officer who incorrectly construed a remand order as a substantive decision. The High Court upheld the impugned order, finding the Consolidation Officer lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition after ten years of consolidation finality.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to file a civil suit for rectification of the revenue record.

Ram Sarup and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Civil Writ Petition No.3323 of 1993 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Civil Writ Petition No.3323 of 1993

¶4

Date of Order: 05.02.2013

¶5

Ram Sarup and others ...Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Punjab and others. ..Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL

¶9

Present: Mr. G.S.Nagra, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶10

Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Addl. A.G.,Punjab for respondent no.1.

¶11

Mr.A.P.Kaushal, Advocate for respondent no.2.

¶12

RAJIVE BHALLA, J.

¶13

The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing order dated 09.02.1993, passed by the Director, Land Records (exercising powers under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Consolidation Act').

¶14

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Additional Director Consolidation, vide order dated 12.07.1991, directed the petitioners to first seek their remedy under Section 21 of the Consolidation Act. The petitioners, therefore, filed a petition

¶15

-2-

¶16

Civil Writ Petition No.3323 of 1993

¶17

under Section 21 of the Consolidation Act, before the Consolidation Officer, who decided the matter in their favour. The Director, Land Records, had no jurisdiction to allow a petition, filed by private respondents, by holding that the Consolidation Officer had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition, as it was time barred. It is argued that as the Additional Director Consolidation had, in the exercise of powers under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act, already directed the petitioners to approach the Consolidation Officer, his successor, who also exercises powers under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act, had no jurisdiction to review order dated 12.07.1991, and set aside the order passed by the Consolidation Officer.

¶18

Counsel for private respondent no.2 submits that the Additional Director Consolidation had merely directed parties to first seek their remedy under Section 21 of the Consolidation Act. The Consolidation Officer construed the order, as a direction, to decide the matter on merits. The Consolidation Officer was required to examine, whether he was empowered to entertain a petition under Section 21 of the Consolidation Act, particularly, as consolidation proceedings had attained finality ten years ago. The impugned order is, therefore, legal and valid and may be affirmed.

¶19

We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

¶20

Civil Writ Petition No.3323 of 1993

¶21

-3-

¶22

Consolidation proceedings came to an end in 1980-81. The petitioners filed a petition under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act praying that an error committed while calculating their share holdings and allotting land, may be rectified. The Additional Director Consolidation passed the following order on 12.07.1991:-

¶23

“This petition has been directed against repartition. It has been submitted by the petitioners that there has been fraud in their share of the land and there is also dispute about the valuation. Six objections have been filed in regard to the giving of less area of land to them. The consolidation was effected in the village in 1980. The parties have been directed that they should first seek remedy under Section 21 and thereafter may come up in revision u/s 42 of the Act; because in this case it is essential to scrutinise the detailed record. Therefore, under the circumstances no relief can be given. The present petition is dismissed.”

¶24

A perusal of the order reveals that the Additional Director Consolidation merely directed the petitioners to

¶25

-4-

¶26

Civil Writ Petition No.3323 of 1993

¶27

approach the Consolidation Officer, under Section 21 of the Consolidation Act. The Additional Director Consolidation neither directed the Consolidation Officer to decide the matter on merits nor did he hold that the Consolidation Officer has jurisdiction to entertain the petition. At this stage, it would be appropriate to point out that Section 21 of the Consolidation Act provides a series of appeals against orders passed during re-partition proceedings (i.e., allotment of land) and cannot be invoked after consolidation proceedings have attained finality. The only authority empowered, after consolidation proceedings attain finality, to rectify any error in the revenue record, prepared during consolidation and then also, if a petition is filed within reasonable time, is the officer, duly authorised to exercise power under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act.

¶28

The petitioners filed a petition under Section 21 of the Consolidation Act before the Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer was required to consider, whether he had any jurisdiction to entertain the petition, after a delay of ten years. The Consolidation Officer construed the order passed by the Additional Director Consolidation, dated 12.07.1991 as an order of remand directing him to decide the appeal filed under Section 21(2) of the Consolidation Act, without realising that he had no jurisdiction to decide the matter and, therefore, allowed the petition.

¶29

Civil Writ Petition No.3323 of 1993 -5-

¶30

The private respondents rightly filed a petition before the Director Land Records bringing to his notice the illegal exercise of jurisdiction by the Consolidation Officer. The Director Land Records has not committed any error while holding that the Consolidation Officer had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition, filed under Section 21 of the Consolidation Act, after ten years. The impugned order, in our considered opinion, does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or of law. The remedy, if any, of the petitioners was to raise a dispute regarding title before a Civil Court and to seek rectification of the revenue record.

¶31

In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed but with liberty to the petitioners to file a civil suit, in accordance with law.

¶32

(RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE February 05, 2013 (REKHA MITTAL) nt JUDGE

Ram Sarup and Others v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Sarup and Others v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gram Panchayat Murajwala Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Dharamvir Sharma Vs Ut of Chandigarh

Amra Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Sadhu Singh etc. Vs Director Rural Development & Panchayat Department & Ors.

Prem Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Ashok Kumar Vs Director, Rural Dev. & Panchayats, Pb. & Ors.