Gram Panchayat vs Addl. Director, Consolidation of Holdings and Others

V.K. Jhanji, J.—On the request of counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken on board for final disposal.

In this writ petition, challenge by the petitioner Gram Panchayat is to order dated 19.1.1996, Annexure P-1 passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Mohali (for short the Additional Director). Order dated 19.1.1996 came to be passed on the application filed by right-holders, namely respondents No. 2 to 56 of Village u/s 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The right-holders contended that there was a Khewat in the name of Shamilat Deh Hasab Zar Khewat and during consolidation, instead of partitioning this land, the same was kept joint. They further contended that they being proprietors of the village, this land is required to be partitioned among them. They also challenged mutation which had been sanctioned in favour of panchayat and contended that the same be declared illegal.

Upon notice of the application, petitioner Gram Panchayat appeared before the Additional Director and filed reply and took various objections and prayed that application u/s 42 of the Act be dismissed on the grounds mentioned therein. Petitioner specifically pleaded that the consolidation of holdings was completed in the village about 38 years ago and the land was allotted in the name of Gram Panchayat and since then the Gram Panchayat is controlling and managing the land in question. Petitioner pleaded that the land falls u/s 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and as such the Gram Panchayat is owner in possession of the land. The Additional Director instead of dealing with the objections of the petitioner in regard to entertaining the application u/s 42 of the Act, allowed the application filled by the right-holders and vide impugned order, directed that the land be partitioned among the right-holders. Hence this writ petition.

The grievance made by the petitioner in this petition is that the Additional Director without averting to the objections raised by the petitioner to the prayer made by the right-holders has partitioned the land in an arbitrary manner. Counsel contended that the writ petition has now come to be covered by a decision of the Supreme Court of India in Gram Panchayat, Kakran Vs. Addl. Director of Consolidation and Another, . Reference has also been made to another judgment of the Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat, Nurpur Vs. State of Punjab and Others, and the Division Bench judgments of this Court rendered in C.W.P. No. 16747 of 1996 titled Gram Panchayat Village Surajpur v. Director, Consolidation of Holdings, decided on 4.11.1997.

4 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

In the present case, consolidation proceedings in the village were completed in the year 1958. The right-holders filed petition in the year 1995 but while allowing the petition, the Additional Director gave no reason whatsoever for entertaining the petition after such a gross delay. In Gram Panchayat Kakran''s case (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that an application u/s 42 of the Act is not to be entertained if filed after gross delay. Division Bench in Gram Panchayat Village Surajpur''s case (Supra) quashed similar order passed by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings. In Gram Panchayat Nurpur v. State of Punjab and Ors., their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that the Additional Director has no authority to go into the question whether the land in dispute is Shamlat Deh or not as the same can only be decided by Authorities under the Punjab Village Common lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. In the said case before the Supreme Court, Jamabandi for the year 1944-45 prior to the Consolidation Act read as Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Khewat and in the cultivation column, entry was Maqbooza Malkan. The Additional Director interpreted the entire to mean that the right-holders were in continuous possession of land in dispute from 1944- 45 onwards and on that assumption, he came to the conclusion that despite the entry in the column of ownership the land was not Shamlat Deh land and as such did not vest in the Gram Panchayat. The High Court upheld the order of the Additional Director and dismissed the writ petition in limine but the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside order of the Additional Director as also order of the High Court for the reason that Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings had no authority to go into the question whether the land in dispute was Shamlat Deh or not. In this case also order dated 19.1.1996. Annexure P-1 is similar to the one challenged in the afore-mentioned judgments of the Supreme Court.

Faced with this situation, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents contended that the land in dispute was kept reserved for common purposes by applying pro rate cut. it is contended that after the land was utilised for common purpose for which it was reserved, the un-utilised land is Bachat land and the right-holders being the co-owners, are entitled to seek re-partition. In this regard, reference was made to a Division bench judgment of this Court in Bhagwan Singh and Ors. v. The Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab and Ors. 1997(1) P.L.J. 458. It is also contended that for filing application u/s 42 of the Act, no limitation is prescribed and, therefore, the Additional Director committed no illegality in entertaining the application. In Bhagwan Singh''s case (supra), land therein admittedly was reserved for common purposes by applying pro rata cut and after it had been utilized for common purpose for which it was reserved, the unutilised land was ordered to be partitioned among the right-holders. In the present case, it is not the admitted case of the parties that the land was reserved for common purpose by applying pro rata cut. Rather, the petitioner had specifically pleaded that the land was reserved for Village Panchayat and not for the benefit of the village community. Petitioner had also pleaded that the land in question is Shamlat Deh and falls within the definition of Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The Additional Director had not even adverted to the objections raised by the petitioner much less dealing with the same. As regards the contention that there is no limitation provided in the Act for filing application u/s 42 of the Act, it is only to be stated that though no limitation is prescribed but the application is required to be filed within a reasonable time. Application filed after a lapse of 38 years cannot be said to be filed within reasonable time.

Consequently, for the reasons recorded above, this writ petition is allowed and order dated 19.1.1996, Annexure P-1 passed by the additional Director is quashed. No costs.