Allowed

Gram Panchyat Sukhi Majara v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 May 2013CWP/4788/1987

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition quashing an order passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation, Punjab. The court held that the order was null and void due to lack of jurisdiction, as filing under Section 42 after twenty years violated the 'reasonable time' principle affirmed by the Supreme Court. Additionally, the Gram Panchayat was proceeded against ex parte.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 30.6.1987 is set aside and the writ petition is allowed.

Gram Panchyat Sukhi Majara Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Civil Writ Petition No.4788 of 1987 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

Civil Writ Petition No.4788 of 1987 Date of Decision: 15.5.2013

¶4

Gram Panchayat Ghahi Majra

¶5

..Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Punjab and others

¶8

..Respondents

¶9

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

¶10

Present: Mr. Arun Nehra, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab for respondent no.1.

¶12

None for the private respondents.

¶13

RAJIVE BHALLA, J. (ORAL)

¶14

The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing order dated 30.6.1987 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab.

¶15

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Additional Director, Consolidation, Punjab, had no jurisdiction to entertain the application, under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the “Consolidation Act”) after twenty years of conclusion of consolidation, and to pass orders adversely affecting rights that had crystalised over two and half decades. It is further submitted that the Gram Panchayat was proceeded against ex parte

¶16

Civil Writ Petition No.4788 of 1987 2

¶17

in an illegal and arbitrary manner, as no notice was ever served upon the Sarpanch or any member of the Gram Panchayat. It is also pointed out that as per the impugned order, the Gram Panchayat has been deprived of land measuring 176 Kanals-18 Marlas, whereas it has been allotted only 40 Kanals-03 Marlas.

¶18

No one is present on behalf of contesting respondent nos. 2 to 15.

¶19

We have heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the impugned order and have no hesitation in holding that the impugned order is null and void, for want of jurisdiction. The consolidation proceedings concluded in 1968-69. Upon finalisation of consolidation proceedings, consolidation authorities are functus officio, except to the extent of correcting clerical errors or errors occurring in the scheme and orders passed during consolidation, provided these errors are brought to the notice of the authorities, within reasonable time. It is true that Section 42 of the Consolidation Act uses the expression “at any time”, but as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat Kakran versus Additional Director of Consolidation, 1997(4) RCR (Civil) 498, the expression “at any time” denotes `reasonable time' and, therefore, does not afford a license to a party, to file a petition under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act after inordinate delay, particularly when rights of parties have crystalised over a period of decades. This apart, a perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Gram Panchayat was proceeded against ex parte and land measuring 176 Kanals-18 Marlas was retrieved from the Gram Panchayat and allotted to the private

¶20

Civil Writ Petition No.4788 of 1987 3

¶21

respondents, without any apparent tenable reason. The reasons assigned by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, that land, belonging to the private respondents, exists in different parcels and at different places, was a fact that was in existence at the time of repartition, and, therefore, required the private respondent, to file an appeal, in accordance with the procedure, prescribed by Section 21 of the Consolidation Act and if not so filed, to approach the State or its delegate, under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act, within `reasonable time'. The petition filed twenty years after conclusion of consolidation proceedings, cannot be said to have been filed “within reasonable time” and even otherwise, as no valid reason has been assigned by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, for depriving the Gram Panchayat of its land holding, the impugned order is null, void and arbitrary.

¶22

In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed.

¶23

( RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE

¶24

( REKHA MITTAL) JUDGE

¶25

15.5.2013 VK

Gram Panchyat Sukhi Majara v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gram Panchyat Sukhi Majara v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rishpal Singh and Anr. Vs Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana and Anr.

Sulalit Gupta Vs State of Punjb Thr'H S.H.O. Police Station , Ldh

Malhara Singh Vs Pb State.

Harbans Kaur and Ors. Vs Dari Ram and Anr.

Jagdish Chander and Ors. Vs State of Haryana Andors.

Sushil Kumar Vs State of Haryana