Remanded

Bhajan Singh v. Director, Land Records of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Dec 2015CWP/14474/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab High Court set aside orders by the Land Records Director and Consolidation Officer that allotted public passage land to the respondent to cure a deficiency. The court held the authorities failed to determine if the land was public passage or sufficient proof of access for the petitioner, remanding the matter for a fresh decision with spot inspection.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 20.03.2013 and 30.05.2014 are set aside and remitted to the Director, Land Records, Punjab for a fresh decision within four months.

Bhajan Singh Vs Director, Land Records of Punjab… — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.14474 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 14, 2015

Bhajan Singh

....Petitioner

versus

Director, Land Records of Punjab and others .....Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BAJANTHRI.

¶8

¶9

Present: Mr.Naveen Batra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Bhardwaj, Additional AG, Punjab. Mr.Harsh Bunger, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

¶10

-.-

¶11

Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

¶15

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶16

The petitioner has laid challenge to the order dated 20.03.2013 passed by the Director, Land Records, Punjab, whereby a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 filed by respondent No.3 was allowed. The consequential order dated 30.05.2014 passed by the District Revenue Officercum-Consolidation Officer is also under challenge.

¶17

The petitioner and third respondent are residents of village Barwa, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar and it appears that they are neighbourers. The consolidation in their village took place and records were finalized on 29.11.1962. There is a dispute between the parties as to whether Khasra Nos.317 and 318 were earmarked as public

¶18

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.12.18 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

CWP No.14474 of 2014

¶20

[2]

¶21

passage (Rasta-a-aam) at the time of consolidation or both these khasra numbers were allotted and included in the landholding of respondent No.3?

¶22

Respondent No.3 moved a petition in the year 2011 before the Director, Land Records, claiming that his father was allotted 40 kanals 10 marlas land in consolidation out of which a cut of 0 kanal 13 marla was made for use for common purposes. In this manner, his father was allotted 39 kanal 13 marla standard area against his entitlement of 39 kanal 17 marla. On this premise, it was claimed that there was a deficiency in the allotment of land which was required to be made good. Respondent No.3 further claimed that khasra No.317 is in his possession from the very beginning whereas khasra No.318 was subsequently purchased by him and the petitioner on 21.01.1992. It is thus contended that the area of both these khasra numbers was liable to be included in his land-holding to cater the deficiency. The Director, Land Records vide the impugned order dated 20.03.2013 accepted the claim of respondent No.3 in principle and sent the case to Consolidation Officer to work out the modalities. The second impugned order dated 30.05.2014 was then passed allotting the above-mentioned khasra number to respondent No.3.

¶23

There is no gain saying that if khasra Nos.317 and 318 were earmarked as 'public passage' at the time of consolidation, then these two khasra numbers stand included in shamlat deh and vest in Gram Panchayat. The land of public passage cannot be allotted to make good the deficiency. The other question that also needs to be addressed is whether the public passage comprising khasra Nos.317 and 318 is the only access to the land of petitioner?

¶24

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.12.18 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶25

CWP No.14474 of 2014

¶26

[3]

¶27

Unfortunately, both these questions have not been answered by the Consolidation Authorities while passing the impugned orders. The interest of Gram Panchayat is paramount and cannot be allowed to be compromised for the protection of an individual's rights. As the orders under challenge do not address these issues, the same are unsustainable and are hereby set-aside. The matter is remitted to the Director, Land Records, Punjab, for a fresh decision in accordance with law and in the light of observations made herein-above. The Authority shall call for the records of consolidation besides spot inspection report. Thereafter, the matter shall be decided preferably within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.

¶28

The parties are directed to appears before the aforementioned Authority on 11.01.2016.

¶29

Dasti.

¶30

[SURYA KANT]

¶31

December 14, 2015 [P.B.BAJANTHRI] mohinder JUDGE

¶32

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.12.18 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Bhajan Singh v. Director, Land Records of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhajan Singh v. Director, Land Records 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dayal Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Sunita Devi Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Shashi Bhushan Sharma Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Yadwinder Pal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Suneeta Sharma Vs Gmada and Ors.

Ravi Chhabra Vs the Returning Officer and Ors.