Allowed

Mansa Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Feb 2013CWP/6133/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed orders directing land allotment made by the Consolidation Officer on the basis of a fourth petition filed without disclosing prior dismissals. The court held the authority lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition and entertaining it incorrectly used Gram Panchayat land to regularize private shortfall.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders passed by Additional Director Consolidation and Consolidation Officer set aside. Petitioner at liberty to approach civil court for title declaration if grievance remains.

Mansa Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CWP No.6133 of 1999

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.6133 of 1999 Date of decision: 18.02.2013

Mansha Singh

..... Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents

¶9

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

¶10

Present : None for the petitioner.

¶11

Ms.Vandana Malhotra, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondents No.1 and 2.

¶12

Mr.Arun Jain, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate, for respondents No.3 to 9.

¶13

¶14

RAJIVE BHALLA, J.(ORAL)

¶15

The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari, quashing order dated 06.06.1997, passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab and order, dated 24.12.1997, passed by the Consolidation Officer, Circle Jalandhar, pursuant to the aforesaid order.

¶16

Counsel for the petitioner is not present but as we have perused the pleadings and the impugned orders, it would not be necessary to adjourn the case to await appearance on behalf of the petitioner.

¶17

A perusal of the pleadings, reveals that Lachhman Kaur, respondent No.4, filed a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab

¶18

Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act,

¶19

CWP No.6133 of 1999

¶20

-2-

¶21

1948 (hereinafter referred to as the “Consolidation Act”), which was dismissed on 06.11.1973, in the following terms: -

¶22

“This petition is against 21(1) proceedings dated 29.09.70. Petition was received on 31.01.73 and is, therefore, a delayed petition. There being no satisfactory explanation of delay petition is filed as time-barred.”

¶23

Despite dismissal of the petition, respondent no.4 filed another petition, on 14.11.1991, before the Additional Director Consolidation, by concealing the dismissal of her earlier petition, claiming the same relief. The second petition was dismissed on 08.01.1993 after a detailed consideration of pleas raised by respondent No.4 and by recording a finding that a similar petition, claiming the same relief, has already been dismissed. A relevant extract from order dated 08.01.1993, passed by the Additional Director Consolidation, reads as follows: -

¶24

“It has been revealed that the petitioner had already taken similar objections in her petition dated 14.10.1976 which was decided on 08.09.1971 and the shortage was also made good. Petition u/s 42 of the Act was also filed concealing the fact of the previous objections u/s 21(2) on 19.02.1973 with the same grounds and the same was dismissed on 06.11.1973. The counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petition u/s 42 was filed against Bagha Singh on entirely different issue. So that decision has got no relevance. The perusal of form indicates that it has been mentioned that no petition u/s 21(2), 21(3), 21(4) and 42 has been ever filed. So true facts have been concealed by the petitioner and the verification of the petition has been wrongly made. Secondly, it has not been explained by the counsel for the petitioner as to what is the difference between the grounds in earlier petition u/s 42 and the present petition. The perusal of both petitions indicates that the plea taken in the present petition also finds mention in the earlier petition u/s 42 which was dismissed by the Additional Director C/H vide his order

¶25

CWP No.6133 of 1999

¶26

-3-

¶27

dated 06.11.1973. Since the Additional Director, C/H has not been given powers of review, the decision on the present petition amounts to review of earlier order of the Additional Director C/H dt.06.11.1973. So I have no alternative, but to dismiss the petition.”

¶28

During pendency of the above petition, respondent No.4

¶29

filed another petition which was dismissed as withdrawn on 07.01.1989.

¶30

Mr.J.S.Rakkar, Advocate, who had filed the earlier petitions, filed a fourth petition, on behalf of respondent No.4, under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act, raising the same pleas. The Additional Director Consolidation accepted the petition and remitted the matter to the Consolidation Officer with a direction that kammi (shortfall) in land allotted to respondent No.4 be made good out of Mushtarka malkan/Gram Panchayat land.

¶31

The Consolidation Officer took up the matter for consideration and in compliance with the direction issued by the Additional Director Consolidation, retrieved a huge tract of land, measuring 92 kanals and 17 marlas from land belonging to the Nagar Sabha i.e. the Gram Panchayat.

¶32

The petitioner avers that in view of dismissal of three earlier petitions, praying for the same relief, the Additional Director Consolidation had no jurisdiction to entertain the fourth petition and to direct the Consolidation Officer to allot land to respondent No.4. It is further averred that respondent No.4 concealed the filing of earlier petitions and, therefore, obtained an order that is illegal and void.

¶33

CWP No.6133 of 1999

¶34

-4-

¶35

Counsel for respondents No.4 to 9 submits that there was a shortfall in the allotment made to respondent No.4. The sale deeds executed in her favour, prior to consolidation, had either not been recorded in the revenue record or the land, allotted to her, was deficient. Respondent No.4, therefore, has a right to seek correction of the revenue record prepared by consolidation authorities. The only authority empowered to order such a correction is the delegate of the State, exercising power under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act. Respondent No.4, therefore, rightly filed a petition under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act. A perusal of the impugned orders does not reveal any error of jurisdiction or of law as would require interference at the behest of the petitioner, who claims to be in occupation of the land, in dispute, but does not assert or allege any proprietary right, title or interest, in the land, in dispute. It is further submitted that as the Consolidation Officer has passed an order under Section 21(2) of the Consolidation Act, the respondents were required to file an appeal before the Settlement Officer, the Assistant Director Consolidation and only, thereafter, approach the Director Consolidation by filing a petition under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act.

¶36

We have heard counsel for respondents No.4 to 9, perused averments in the petition and the reply and after due consideration of the impugned orders, have no hesitation in holding that the Additional Director Consolidation had no jurisdiction to entertain the fourth petition filed by respondent No.4, for the same cause of action and

¶37

-5-

¶38

CWP No.6133 of 1999

¶39

relief much less to pass an order directing the Consolidation Officer to make good shortfall in land allotted to Lachhman Kaur, respondent No.4 from Gram Panchayat land.

¶40

A perusal of the facts reveals that the first petition for making good the shortfall in the allotment of land to respondent No.4 was dismissed on 06.11.1973. The second petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 07.11.1989. The third petition was dismissed on 08.01.1993. The fourth petition (the petition in dispute) was filed without disclosing the dismissal of three earlier petitions, though the fourth petition was filed by the same counsel. The dismissal of three earlier petitions filed on the same cause of action and for the same relief prohibited respondent No.4 from filing a fourth petition. The Additional Director Consolidation had no jurisdiction to entertain the fourth petition as consolidation authorities do not have the power of review.

¶41

A faint attempt by counsel for respondent No.4 to justify the filing of the fourth petition by asserting that parties are different, cannot be accepted. The grievance raised in all four petitions, namely, shortfall in allotment, is identical and is based on the same facts and cause of action. For counsel for the petitioner to urge that as parties are different, the Additional Director Consolidation was justified in entertaining the petition, in our considered opinion, if accepted, would confer legitimacy on an order passed on an illegal assumption of jurisdiction.

¶42

CWP No.6133 of 1999

¶43

-6-

¶44

Even if, it were to hold that the order passed by the Additional Director Consolidation is legal and valid, we are at pains to observe that a direction was issued to make good shortfall in the allotment by retrieving land from Mushtarka Malkan/Gram Panchayat land. It is rather surprising that the common land of the village i.e. land owned by the Gram Panchayat or by the proprietors in accordance with their shareholdings, was ordered to be appropriated to make good allotment of a private individual. It would be necessary to reiterate that shortfall in allotment can only be made good after determining the person, who has been allotted excess land. This apart, the Additional Director Consolidation had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition as it suffered from unexplained delay and laches.

¶45

In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned orders are set aside and in case, Lachhman Kaur, respondent No.4, has any grievance with respect to any deficiency in her allotment, she would be at liberty to approach a civil court for declaration of her title.

¶46

[ RAJIVE BHALLA ] JUDGE

¶47

[ REKHA MITTAL ] JUDGE

¶48

18.02.2013 shamsher

Mansa Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mansa Singh 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

Sujata Sharma Vs Bachan Singh

Hasam Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Janak Singh Vs Commissioner Ambala Division Ambala and Ors.

Siri Niwas & Ors. Vs Commissioner Hisar Range & Ors.

Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Raghbir Singh etc. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.