Quashed

Gram Panchayat v. Addl. Director and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Apr 2024CWP/15236/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenged an order of the Additional Director, Consolidation under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 altering allotments in a consolidation scheme. The High Court held Section 42 jurisdiction is confined to clerical errors and rasta matters; a disputed title question must go to a civil court. The impugned order was qua

What did the court decide?

Impugned Annexure P-7 order quashed and set aside.

Gram Panchayat Vs Addl. Director and Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

CWP No. 15236 of 1996

¶2

2024:PHHC:055367-DB

¶3

-1-

¶4

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶5

(104) CWP No.15236 of 1996(O&M) Date of Decision: 24.04.2024

¶6

Gram Panchayat of village Bachhoana

¶7

.....Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Additional Director and another ....Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LALIT BATRA

¶11

Present: Mr. Aakash Singla, Advocate and Ms. Vaishali Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

¶13

Mr. Arun Jindal, Advocate and Mr. Kanish Jindal, Advocate for respondent No.2. ****

¶14

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. (ORAL)

¶15

The Gram Panchayat of village Bachhoana, Tehsil Bulada, District Mansa, through Naib Singh, Panch, has instituted the instant writ petition before this Court whereby he seeks quashing and setting aside of the impugned Annexure P-7, wherebys the Additional Director, Consolidation, Punjab, Mohali, purportedly made an interference with the consolidation scheme and thereby purportedly breached the jurisdictional limits, vested in him, under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter in short referred to as ‘the Act of 1948’).

¶16

The learned counsels appearing for the contesting litigants have been heard at length.

¶17

DIWAKER GULATI 2024.04.25 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶18

CWP No. 15236 of 1996

¶19

-22024:PHHC:055367-DB

¶20

A perusal of the impugned order discloses that therebys the Additional Director, Consolidation, Punjab, Mohali, accepted the motion as became laid before him by one Maghar Singh, wherebys he claimed that he has been allotted a deficient quantum of land, despite his being entitled to a higher quantum of land. The said grievance appears to become purportedly premised on the ground that the said claim became well rested upon the respectively prepared khatoni pamaish, scheme istemal and naksha haqdarwar. In other words, it appears that the petitioner, in the said motion claimed that despite the lands under the documents supra becoming declared to be falling to his share or his being entitled theretos, yet in the updation of records which occurred in terms of Section 42 of the Act of 1948, rather yet the areas declared qua him in the documents supra, thus remaining unreflected thereins. Therefore, it appears that the said petitioner claimed that, as such, there was a clerical or an arithmetical error, in the records which were prepared in terms of Section 42 of the Act of 1948. Resulantly, it also appears that for undoing the said purported clerical error or omission, the said Maghar Singh instituted a petition under Section 42 of the 1948 Act. 4. The said grounds would become vindicated by this Court only when there was a discussion made in the impugned Annexure P-7, qua despite the apposite declarations of entitlements of the private respondents in the instant petition, rather occuring in documents (supra), yet such declarations being not carried-forth or not becoming reflected in the record of rights as became prepared in terms of Section 22 of the Act 1948. However, there is no iota of discussion in Annexure P-7, that despite the declaration of entitlements of the petitioner, as made respectively in the khatoni istemal, naksha haqdarwar or scheme istemal khatoni pamaish , yet

¶21

DIWAKER GULATI 2024.04.25 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶22

CWP No. 15236 of 1996

¶23

-32024:PHHC:055367-DB

¶24

such declarations of entitlements, rather not becoming given effectivity in the record of rights as became updated. If so, there was no occasion for the Additional Director, Consolidation, Punjab, Mohali, to assume jurisdiction on a petition filed under Section 42 of the Act of 1948, especially when the jurisdiction assumed thereunders, was confined or limited only to correction of clerical errors, but to the extent as stated supra, and to the creation of a rasta, but when no consolidation rasta was rather created besides when on such created consolidation rasta, some obstructions or obstacles were created by any stakeholder, thus, against the exercising of easementary rights thereovers by the other stakeholders, wherebys, a direction may be passable by the Additional Director Consolidation concerned, to cause the removal of such hindrances or obstacles against the user of a consolidation rasta by the estate holders concerned.

¶25

In the wake of the above, since rather a disputed question of title arose in respect of the disputed lands, thus inter se the present petitioner and the private respondents in the instant petition, therebys the said disputed question of title was to be settled only in a civil suit becoming instituted by the aggrieved, from the finalized consolidation scheme, thus before the jurisdictionally competent Civil Court concerned.

¶26

The remedy for undoing any purported under-allotments or misallotments being made in the finalized consolidation scheme(s), rather by the Consolidation Officer concerned, thus was not through the adoption of a remedy constituted under Section 42 of the Act of 1948, as the exercising of said remedy was limited only to the extent supra.

¶27

In the consequence, on finding the impugned order suffering from a gross illegality and material impropriety, and as such, is required to

¶28

DIWAKER GULATI 2024.04.25 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶29

CWP No. 15236 of 1996 -42024:PHHC:055367-DB

¶30

be quashed and set aside. Ordered accordingly.

¶31

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶32

(SURESHWAR THAKUR) JUDGE

¶33

		(LALIT BATRA) JUDGE
April 24	, 2024
d.gulati
	Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
	Whether reportable	: Yes/No

¶34

DIWAKER GULATI 2024.04.25 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Gram Panchayat v. Addl. Director and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gram Panchayat v. Addl. Director 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

Vijay Kumar and Ors. Vs the Secy to Govt of Pb & Ors.

Jhanda Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Jasvir Singh Grewal and Another Vs Union of India and Others

Pritam Singh Vs Nirmal Singh

Pritam Singh Vs Director Consolidatione

Gurmail Singh Vs Punjab State etc.