Gram Panchayat of village Kandhargarh and others vs Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings Punjab

K.S. Tiwana, J. (Oral)

The petitioner in this case is the Gram Panchayat of village Kandhargarh. The case set up by the petitioner is that during the consolidation operations in the village two strips of land 136, 133, Karams long and 8 karams vide were left along the Phirni of the village for use as manure pits by the residents of the village. After this land was set apart, during the consolidation operations in the year 1953, the resident of the village had been using these strips of land for the purpose they had been left by the consolidation authorities. One of the strips which is 133 Karams long and 8 Karams wide, was given Khasra No. 143, and it was so entered in the Jamabandi for the year 197071. The other strip, which was 136 Karams long and 8 Karams wide, due to oversight, was not entered in the revenue records and thus was omitted from the Jamabandi. The Gram Panchayat of the village in 1970 moved the Consolidation Officer to correct this clerical error, which had occurred due to the omission of the revenue authorities. The Consolidation Officer, Sangrur, vide order Annexure P.2, dated 6th of April, 1970, made the necessary correction and allotted Khasra No. 143/1 to this strips of land. He got the necessary correction made in the Jamabandi also. Teja Singh, respondent No. 2, took the matter in appeal before the Additional Director Consolidation, who, vide his order dated 10th of July, 1975, Annexure P.4 to the petition set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer on the ground that he had no jurisdiction after 17 years of the completion of the consolidation to make the corrections. The Additional Director of Consolidation formed the view that the clerical mistakes could be corrected by the Consolidation Officers only if they are pointed out to the officers during the consolidation of the record.

Dissatisfied with the order of the Additional Director, Consolidation the Gram Panchayat has challenged it by way of this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India stating that the order of the Consolidation Officer was within this jurisdiction, as envisaged by sections 22 and section 43A of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. It was further averred that the order of the Additional Director of Consolidation was in excess of his jurisdiction and was patently wrong and was not borne out by the facts.

Respondent No. 2 in spite of service has not filed any return to the petition.

I have gone through the writ petition, impugned orders and heard the counsel for the parties. It is not disputed that the strip of land in question remained unentered in the revenue records and was without any assignment of the Khasra Number. Annexure P.3 a copy of the Shajra Kishtwar attached to the petition, also supports the contention of the petitioner to this effect that on one side Khasra No. 143, which is 133 Karams long and 8 Karams wide is marked and entered in the revenue records, on the eastern side the same type of strip is not given any number. This seems to have occurred, because of the omission by the Consolidation staff during the consolidation operation and the preparation of the record of rights. This omission is well made out.

The next question which arises is as to whether the Consolidation Officer is empowered to make such correction. Section 22 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, makes it the duty of the Consolidation Officer to cause the revenue record to be prepared in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter IV of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 and also to give effect to the repartition as made under Section 21 of the Consolidation Act. According to Section 43A of the Act, clerical or arithmetical mistakes in a scheme made, or an order passed by any officer under this Act, arising from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the authority concerned either of its own motion or on the application of any parties. There is no doubt that the strip was left from being entered in the revenue record after allocating a Khasra number due to the accidental slip of the Consolidation Department. There is no mention of any specific officer, who can make the necessary correction. It refers to any officer. Any Officer would necessarily include a Consolidation Officer, whose duty under Section 22 of the Act, is to prepare the record and get the repartition correction on the application of the Gram Panchayat, which is the affected party, was neither wrong, nor in excess of the jurisdiction. He was well within his right to pass that order. The learned Additional Director, Consolidation, was not right to say that the said compilation of the record. The Additional Director, Consolidation exceeded all propriety and legality and upset the valid and legal order of the Consolidation Officer.

The petition is, therefore, accepted and the order Annexures P.4 is quashed with no order as to costs.