Writ petition challenging a consolidation order allotting excess land to private respondents beyond the finalized scheme. The High Court held the Additional Director lacked jurisdiction over such disputes, quashed the order, and left parties free to approach the Civil Court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP No. 13177 of 1996
-12024:PHHC:056277-DB
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
(102) CWP No.13177 of 1996(O&M) Date of Decision: 25.04.2024
Ranjit Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
The State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LALIT BATRA
Present: Mr. A.S. Dhindsa, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. (ORAL)
DIWAKER GULATI 2024.04.26 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
CWP No. 13177 of 1996 -2-
2024:PHHC:056277-DB
for alloting to him lands in excess of those which became allotted to him in the finalized consolidation scheme, rather therebys accepted the said petition. The grievance raised before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that, the said allotment of lands to the private respondents, thus in excess of the lands which became allotted to them in the finalized consolidation scheme, was made beyond the jurisdictional competence of the Additional Director concerned, especially when the limits or the confines of the jurisdiction, to be exercised on the said petition, but is restricted (a) to the makings of corrections of arithmetical or other errors which occur, in the record of rights, (b) to a consolidation rasta being created, for the benefit of estate holders concerned, but when such a rasta is not created, by the Consolidation Officer, (c) besides upon evident obstructions and obstacles happening, at the instance of some of the estate holders concerned, rather against the user of such a consolidation rasta, by the other estate holders, thus, for whose benefit also the said consolidation rasta was created. Resultantly, thereby an able order is passable for removal of such obstructions.
DIWAKER GULATI 2024.04.26 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
CWP No. 13177 of 1996
2024:PHHC:056277-DB
-3-
happening.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR) JUDGE
(LALIT BATRA) JUDGE
April 25, 2024 d.gulati
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No
DIWAKER GULATI 2024.04.26 14:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Additional Director of Consolidation, Punjab, had jurisdiction under Section 42 of the Act of 1948 to allot excess lands to private respondents after finalization of the consolidation sche
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ranjit Singh
The State of Punjab
Respondent No.2
Respondent No.3
Sureshwar Thakur
Lalit Batra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
