Allowed

Joginder Singh v. the Addl.Director of Consolidation Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Feb 2013CWP/5086/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed orders directing mutation in favour of one party and held that consolidation authorities lack jurisdiction to decide title disputes when a civil court decree has already adjudicated the matter, making the civil decree binding on them.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed and the impugned orders were set aside.

Joginder Singh Vs the Addl.Director of… — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CWP No.5086 of 1994

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.5086 of 1994 Pronounced on:8th February, 2013

¶5

Joginder Singh ..... Petitioner

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The Additional Director of Consolidation, Punjab, Jalandhar and others

¶8

..... Respondents

¶9

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

¶10

Present : Mr.P.K.Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondents No.1 and 2.

¶12

Mr.S.S.Behl, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

¶13

¶14

RAJIVE BHALLA, J.

¶15

The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari, quashing orders dated 26.05.1976 (Annexure P-4), 04.01.1994 (Annexure P-7) and 04.04.1994 (Annexure P-8), passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Chandigarh, and the Consolidation Officer, Hoshiarpur, respectively

¶16

Counsel for the petitioner submits that as judgment and decree dated 30.08.1986, passed by the Sub Judge Ist Class, Garhshanker, holding that Harbans Singh and Harbhajan Singh are owners of the land, in dispute, was affirmed by the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur on 17.11.1988, while dismissing an appeal filed by Milkha Singh, the Additional Director Consolidation had no jurisdiction to direct the Consolidation Officer to comply with order

¶17

CWP No.5086 of 1994 -2-

¶18

dated 26.05.1976 which was passed before the declaration issued in the aforementioned judgment and decree. The order passed by the Consolidation Officer in compliance with order passed by the Additional Director Consolidation is also a nullity. It is further submitted that consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to decide a question of title. A civil court having already held that Harbans Singh and Harbhajan Singh are owners, the Additional Director Consolidation had no jurisdiction to direct the Consolidation Officer to comply with order dated 26.05.1976. It is prayed that as the impugned orders are contrary to the civil court decree, they should be set aside.

¶19

Counsel for respondent No.3 submits that as order dated 26.05.1976, passed by the Additional Director Consolidation has not been set aside by any court, the Additional Director Consolidation was justified in directing the Consolidation Officer to comply with this order. It is further submitted that as respondent No.3 had purchased the land, in dispute, from the Rehabilitation Department, by a registered deed, consolidation authorities have rightly rectified the record. It is further submitted that Section 42 of the Consolidation Act, empowers the State Government to examine the legality of any order passed during consolidation. The Additional Director Consolidation was, therefore, competent to pass order dated 04.01.1994. It is further submitted that civil court decrees dated 30.08.1986 and 17.11.1988 are illegal and void as Section 44 of the Consolidation Act, bars civil courts from entertaining any dispute regarding consolidation. The judgment and decree passed in the civil suit and in the appeal are,

¶20

CWP No.5086 of 1994

¶21

-3-

¶22

therefore, a nullity and have been rightly ignored.

¶23

We have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders and have no hesitation in holding that after a civil court had already held that Harbans Singh and Harbhajan Singh are owners in possession of Rectangle No.44, Khasra No.9/3, the Additional Director Consolidation had no jurisdiction to direct the Consolidation Officer to comply with order dated 26.05.1976, and the Consolidation Officer had no jurisdiction to record a mutation in favour of Mangal Singh.

¶24

Mangal Singh son of Uttam Singh, purchased land measuring 2 kanals 7 marlas, bearing Rectangle No.44, Khasra No.9/3 previously recorded as Khasras No.1498, 1499, 1500 and 1501, from the Central government, being evacuee property. After Mangal Singh passed away, the land was inherited by his sons Harbans Singh and Harbhajan Singh. A mutation of inheritance was recorded in their names in the revenue record. Harbans Singh and Harbhajan Singh transferred 27/47 share in favour of Ashoka Balwari School, Garhshanker and were, therefore, left with 20/47 share i.e. 1 kanal of land. Harbans Singh and Harbhajan Singh sold their 1 kanal to the petitioner, vide registered sale deed dated 16.04.1993.

¶25

Milkha Singh (since deceased), respondent No.3, had filed an application under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the “Consolidation Act”) before the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, claiming that

¶26

CWP No.5086 of 1994 -4-

¶27

he has purchased Khasras No.1282 and 1388 from the Rehabilitation Department, vide deed dated 07.05.1973 but as mutation could not be entered in the jamabandi, his name is not recorded in the new khasra numbers allotted after consolidation. The Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, vide order dated 26.05.1976 condoned the delay and directed the Consolidation Officer to enter a mutation in accordance with the deed. After this order, Milkha Singh kept quite and did not approach the Consolidation Officer.

¶28

Harbans Singh and Harbhajan Singh filed a civil suit, claiming ownership of Rectangle No.44, Khasra No.9/3 before the Sub Judge Ist Class, Garhshanker, on 30.08.1986. Milkha Singh was arrayed as a defendant. The suit was decreed by declaring that Harbans Singh and Harbhajan Singh are owners in possession of Rectangle No.44, Khasra No.9/3. Milkha Singh preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur on 17.11.1988, thereby affirming the ownership of Harbans Singh and Harbhajan Singh. After dismissal of his appeal, Milkha Singh approached the Consolidation Officer, Jalandhar, for recording a mutation regarding Rectangle No.44, Khasra No.9/3 in his name. The Consolidation Officer dismissed the application on 16.12.1992.

¶29

Milkha Singh filed a petition under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act, before the Director Consolidation, to challenge the order passed by the Consolidation Officer by claiming that as he had purchased the land from the Central Government and the Additional Director Consolidation had passed an order dated 26.05.1976, directing

¶30

CWP No.5086 of 1994 -5-

¶31

the Consolidation Officer to enter mutation in accordance with the deed, the Consolidation Officer should have allowed the petition. The petitioner's vendors Harbans Singh and Harbhajan Singh put in appearance and informed the Additional Director Consolidation about the civil court decree. The Additional Director Consolidation ignored the civil court decree vide order dated 04.01.1992 and directed the Consolidation Officer to comply with order dated 26.05.1976.

¶32

The questions that fall for adjudication are: (a) whether consolidation authorities have any jurisdiction to decide a question of title, (b) whether Section 44 of the Consolidation Act prohibits Civil Courts from deciding a question of title, and (c) whether, after a civil court had already held that the land, in dispute, belongs to the petitioner's vendors, the Additional Director Consolidation had any jurisdiction to pass order, dated 04.04.1994, directing the Consolidation Officer to comply with an earlier order dated 26.05.1976, directing him to enter a mutation in the name of respondent No.3.

¶33

The Consolidation Act was enacted to consolidate fragmented agricultural holdings. During consolidation, authorities exercise powers of revenue officers as conferred by the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. The question whether authorities under the Consolidation Act are empowered to decide a question of title and whether Section 44 of the Consolidation Act prohibits a civil court from deciding a question of title, came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh Versus Smt. Subhagan and

¶34

CWP No.5086 of 1994 -6-

¶35

others, AIR 1970 Punjab & Haryana, 93 . After considering the provisions of the Consolidation Act and the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, it was held that as consolidation authorities exercise powers of revenue officers, they are not empowered to decide a question of title. It was also held that Section 44 of the Consolidating Act does not prohibit a civil court from deciding a dispute with respect to title, as it merely prohibits civil courts from entertaining any dispute that falls to the jurisdiction of consolidation authorities. It is, therefore, apparent that a civil court decree deciding a question of title, cannot be ignored by consolidation authorities.

¶36

As referred to in the preceding paragraphs, the dispute with respect to ownership of Rectangle No.44, Khasra No.9/3 was decided by the Sub Judge Ist Class, Garhshanker, by holding that Harbans Singh and Harbhajan Singh, the petitioner's vendors, are exclusive owners in possession of the site ABCD, situated in Rectangle No.44, Khasra No.9/3 (the land in dispute). Respondent No.3 filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur on 17.11.1988, thereby affirming the ownership of Harbans Singh and Harbhajan Singh. The petitioner, purchased the land, in dispute, from Harbans Singh and Harbhajan Singh vide a registered sale deed.

¶37

The question of title having already been decided by a civil court, respondent No.3 had no right to approach consolidation authorities for recording a mutation in his favour, on the basis of his alleged allotment from the Rehabilitation Department or order dated 26.05.1976. The civil court decree was as much binding upon

¶38

CWP No.5086 of 1994 -7-

¶39

respondent No.3 as it was upon the Additional Director Consolidation. The Additional Director Consolidation surprisingly ignored the decree and by referring to Section 44 of the Consolidation Act held that a civil court has no jurisdiction to decide a matter relating to consolidation. The Additional Director Consolidation had no jurisdiction to disregard the civil court decree whereby the question of title, had been decided inter-parties, in favour of the petitioner's vendors. The consequent order passed by the Consolidation Officer on the basis of direction issued by the Additional Director Consolidation, is also a nullity and has to be set aside.

¶40

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

¶41

[ RAJIVE BHALLA ] JUDGE

¶42

8^th February, 2013 [ REKHA MITTAL ] shamsher JUDGE

Joginder Singh v. the Addl.Director of Consolidation Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joginder Singh v. the Addl.Director of Consolidation Punjab and 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

Shankar Dass Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Ram Dia Vs Director Consolidation Haryana and Ors.

Surinder Kumar @ Lovely Vs State of Punjab

Gurmail Singh and Anr. Vs Director Rural Developments and Ors.

Ram Singh Vs State of Punjab Thru Secy of Govt. Punjab

Raghbir Singh and Others Vs Director, Rural Development & Panchayat and Others