Gram Panchayat vs The Director Consolidation of Holdings and Others

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.—Gram Panchayat of Village Ranjit Garh has filed the present petition Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for quashing the order of the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab dated 5.8.1996, copy Annexure P-1 to the writ petition, vide which the petition filed u/s 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 was accepted and the case was remanded to the Consolidation Officer, Nabha for partition and redistribution of land comprised in Khewat No. 42 Khatauni No. 90 to 91 of Jamabandi 1991-92, amongst the right holders of village according to their shares after deducting the land meant for common purposes and it was ordered that no tenant, lessee or person in occupation of land will be evicted therefrom except in due course of law.

The case of the petitioner-Gram Panchayat as set up in the writ petition is that from the very beginning the land is Under the possession and control or Gram Panchayat. In the Jamabandi for the year 1950-51, the land has been shown as ''Shamlat Deh'' Masab Rakha Khewat and was controlled and managed by the Gram Panchayat. In the year 1953 at the time of Consolidation, when the entire land of the village was consolidated, the proprietors of the village land never demanded the patition of land amongst them and with their consent the land remained as ''Shamlat Deh''. The said land was being used for the common purposes of the village and most of the land was being given on yearly rent basis by the Gram Panchayat and in-come therefrom were used for the welfare and development of the village community. The land was ''Shamlat Deh'' as shown in the Jamabandi for the year 1993-94 and belongs to the Gram Panchayat but the proprietors of the village filed a petition u/s 42 of the Consolidation Act for distribution of the same. The Gram Panchayat had proved that the land belongs to it but the Director Consolidation vide order dated 5.8.1996 ordered the partition of land in favour of proprietors of the Village.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the scheme of consolidation was prepared after obtaining the advice of land owners and non-proprietors of the village but no demand was made for redistribution of land among the khewatdars u/s 14(2) of the Act and as such the land could not be partitioned. He further contends that if any person is aggrieved by the repartition could file objection within 15 days before the Consolidation Officer but no objection were ever filed. He further contends that the land in favour of proprietors of the village has wrongly been partitioned.

On notice of motion having been issued, written statement on behalf of private respondents filed.

We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

In the written statement, it has been stated that prior to 1950, the land in question was exclusively owned by the proprietors / right holders and they were owner in possession of the same. The land in question was shown to be the ownership of Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Raqwas Khewat and in the column of possession, the land in question was shown Under the possession of Maqbooja Malkan. It has further been stated in the written statement that at the time of consolidation scheme, no consent of the proprietors of the village was ever obtained and there is no provision in the scheme that the joint khatas will not be partitioned.

Learned counsel for the respondents contends that there was 299-12 area of Shamlat Deh, which was recorded in the revenue record and the said area was to be partitioned as per the shares mentioned in the revenue papers and Mustarka Khatas was to be partitioned as per the respective shares.

The pleas taken in the written statement have not been rebutted by the petitioner as no replication to the written statement has been filed.

Since there was a provision in the scheme that the joint khatas will be partitioned, we see no illegality or infirmity in the order of Director,-Consolidation dated 5.8.1996 ordering the partition of land. The other important aspect of the matter is that at the time when consolidation proceedings were going on, there was no Gram Panchayat in the village and the Gram Panchayat came into being in the year 1953. As such, it cannot be said that the land in question vest in the Gram Panchayat.

For the Fore-going reasons, writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. No costs.