Gram Panchayat vs The Director Land Records and Others

Jawahar Lal Gupta and S.S. Sudhalkar, JJ.—The Gram is the petitioner. It is aggrieved by the order dated January 25, 1995, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-2 with the writ petition. By this order, the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, has accepted a petition u/s 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 filed by respondents 3 to 8. The contention of the respondents 3 to 8 that the action of the authorities under the Act in reserving 831 kanals 2 marks of land for common purposes by imposing a pro rata cut on the land holders was violative of Rule 16, has been accepted. The petitioner questions the validity of this order.

The solitary contention raised by Mr. Bhajan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Director has acted illegally in passing this order. Is it so ?

It is pat to notice the provision of Rule 16(ii). It provides as under:-

"16(ii) In an estate or esates where during consolidation proceedings there is no shamlat deh land or such land is considered inadequate, land shall be reserved for the village panchayat and for other common purpose u/s 18(c) of the Act, out of the common pool of the village at the scale given in the schedule to these rules. Proprietary rights in respect of land so reserved (except the area reserved for the extension of abadi of proprietors and non-proprietors) shall vest in the proprietary body of the estate or estates concerned and it shall be entered in the column of ownership of record of rights as (Jumla Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Arazi Hassab Rasad). The management of such land shall be done by the Panchayat of the estate or estates concerned on behalf of the village proprietary body and the panchayat shall have the right to utilise the income derived from the land so reserved for the common needs and the benefits of the estate or estates concerned."

A perusal of the above rule shows that land can be reserved for the Village Panchayat and other common purposes u/s 18(c) only when there is no shamlat deh land or such land is considered inadequate. The purpose is obvious. If shamlat deh land is available, it should be used for common purposes. In case, it is found to be inadequate, land can be reserved out of the common pool for die benefit of the village community. However, the reservation shall be only to the extent it is necessary. In a case, where adequate shamlat deh land is available, the land holders cannot be deprived of their property.

What is the position in the present case ? It has been found that provision of Rule 16(ii) had not been complied with in the present case. Accordingly, the Director has ordered the rectification by amendment of the Scheme. The case has been remanded to the Consolidation Officer for fresh decision. The order is in strict conformity with the provisions of Rule 16(ii).

Accordingly, we find no ground to interfere Under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is wholly lacking in merit and is dismissed in limine.