Lakhmi Chand vs State of Haryana

J.S. Sekhon, J.—Heard. The petitioners through this writ petition, seek a writ of mandamus directing the Consolidation Officer to implement

the order Annexure P2 dated 6.9.1985 of the Director, Consolidation of Land Holdings, Haryana. It is further averred that the subsequent order

dated 7.1.1986 (Annexure P3) of the Director qua the same controversy being illegal, should be quashed.

The Director of Consolidation of Land Holdings have passed the order dated 6.9.1985 (Annexure P2) on the report of Settlement Officer,

Consolidation of Holdings. This order reads as under :

The Settlement Officer, Consolidation of Holdings, Rohtak has reported that the repartition proceedings under Section 21(1) of the C/H, Act

relating to village Rana Majra have been published on 16.7.1983 and that the transfer of possessions has also taken place. He has further reported

that when the possessions were being transferred, the Consolidation Officer found that the boundaries of village Rana Majra did not tally with the

boundaries of the revenue estate of village Garhi Bharal and Brahna. The Settlement Officer, C/H has reported that the Consolidation Officer

found that there was difference in the boundary lines. The S.O.C./H, vide the present reference dated 16.1.1984 has fortwarded the report of the

Consolidation Officer and has made a request that action under Section 42 of the C/H Act should be taken for the correction of the boundaries.

As the matter pertained to the variation of boundaries between the revenue estate of village Rana Majra and other two revenue estates, namely

Garhi Bharal and Brahna, therefore, a general notice was issued to all the people who felt interested in the aforesaid dispute to appear before me.

A general notice was got published in all the three villages through ''Mushtri Munadi''. The report of the process server to that effect is available to

the file.

I have heard all the rightholders of village Rana Majra, Garhi Bharal and Brahna who are present before me today and I have gone through the

relevant record. I have also perused the report of the Consolidation Officer dated 23.12.1983 which is available on the file and I have seen the

relevant copy of Shajra indicating the difference of boundaries in the aforesaid revenue estates. The rightholders of village Rana Majra conceded

that if some land belonging to the rightholders of village Garhi Bharal and Brahna has been wrongly included in village Rana Majra, it may be

excluded from their revenue estate. But they have submitted that some area which was to be included in revenue estate of village Rana Majra has

been wrongly left out of it because of incorrect fixation of boundaries between village Rana Majra and villages Garhi Bharal and Brahna. The

rightholders of these two villages have no objection to such area being included in the revenue estate of village Rana Majra. They have further

submitted that their possession should not be interfered with if the kurahs of village Rana Majra are redemarcated as a result of inclusion of the

area in the revenue estate of village Rana Majra. The rightholders of village Rana Majra have stated that this demand is reasonable and they do not

have any objection to the possession of the residents of village Brahna and Garhi Bharal being kept in tact provided there are entries to such effect

in the revenue record, obviously this plea is reasonable.

I find that the consolidation in villages Garhi Bharal and Brahna has already been completed and the boundaries of these two revenue estates

already determined and are identifiable on the spot. Therefore it would be easy to fix the boundaries of the revenue estates of village Rana Majra

with the help of boundaries which already exist on the spot. Accordingly I modify the consolidation scheme to the extent that the areas which have

been wrongly included or which have been wrongly left out of the area of revenue estate of village Rana Maja should be excluded or included as

the case may be, after carrying out the fresh measurement in terms of the boundaries of villagers Garhi Bharal and Brahna.

As a result of aforesaid notification some of the rightholders are bound to be affected. The case is accordingly remanded to the Consolidation

Officer with the direction that he shall redraw the repartition Shajra after hearing all the affected parties. He shall make it sure that the allotment of

the area to the affected rightholders is made in accordance with provisions of the scheme.

It appears that during the pendency of the earlier reference dated 16.1.1984 of the Settlement Officer before the Director, Consolidation, the

Consolidation Officer vide report dated 22.2.1984 reported to the Settlement Officer, Rohtak, regarding the area to the extent of 460 Kanals 8

Marlas, which was treated as Beshi in the area of revenue estate of village Rana Majra. There was no previous record available but from the spot

verification, it has been found that this area has been in the possession of some people for quite a long time and that due to repartition of this area,

there is a lot of resentment amongst those persons, who were actually in possession thereof. On the basis of this report, the Director, Consolidation

passed the second order (Annexure P2) dated 7.1.1986, which reads as under :

The facts of the case are that when the Consolidation of village Rana Majra was completed at that time the area to the extent of 460 Kanals 8

marlas along the boundary line of village Brahna was taken as a kind of addition to the area falling in the revenue estate of village Rana Majra. The

addition in the area took place on account of diluvion. It might be noted that village Rana Majra falls on the bank of river Jamuna and that is why

the aforesaid diluvion took place. Ordinarily the excess in the area which is found after remeasurement is treated as Shamlat property and it is

divided amongst the rightholders. The aforesaid area too was taken as a Beshi. It was treated as Shamlat property and it was divided amongst the

rightholders in accordance with their shares when the repartition proceedings were published under Section 21(1) of the Act"".

Vide his report dated 20.2.1984, the Consolidation Officer, Karnal reported to the Assistant DirectorcumSettlement Officer, Consolidation of

Holdings, Rohtak that there was no previous record regarding the area to the extent of 460 K8 Marlas which was treated Beshi in the area of

revenue estate of village Rana Majra. But from the spot verification, it has been found that this area has been in the possession of some people for

quite a long time. The Consolidation Officer further reported that this area should not have been treated as Beshi, but on the other hand, it should

have been shown to be in the possession of those persons who were actually occupying it.

It was also reported that on account of repartition of this area, there is a lot of resentment amongst those persons who were actually in

occupation of this land. The Consolidation Officer recommended that this area should be given to those persons who were in actual possession of

it, before consolidation took place. The Consolidation Officer reported that out of 778 K8 M of land which was found to be excess as

consequence of remeasurement 460 K 8 M of aforesaid land should be excluded because it had not been duly accounted for, before the

consolidation. It is his recommendation that the area of 460 K 8 M should be given to those persons who were the actual occupants before the

consolidation took place. Regarding the remaining 318 K 10M, he recommended that it should be distributed amongst the proprietors, in

accordance with their shares. The Consolidation Officer recommended that the scheme should be got amended under Section 42 of the Act.

The Settlement Officer, Consolidation of Holdings, Rohtak duly forwarded the report of the Consolidation Officer, Rohtak, for action under

Section 42 of the Act.

As in the present case the amendment of the scheme was involved and a large number of shareholders were likely to be affected, it was deemed

proper that general notice should be issued to all the concerned persons who might like to represent their case, regarding the amendment of the

scheme. Accordingly, ""Mushtri Munadi"" was ordered to be got done in the village so that any person who might feel interested may come to

represent this case. Notice was issued for 6.9.1985. On 6.9.1985 quite a good number of villagers put in their appearance and exparte

proceedings were ordered against them who had not put in their appearance.

I have heard those persons who were present on 6.9.1985 and on that day the case was adjourned to 15.11.1985 for further proceedings

because some more record was to be scrutinised. I have again heard those of the persons who were present before me on 15.11.1985. I have

also seen the relevant record. On 15.11.1985 the order was reserved.

The main thing in the present case is whether the area measuring 460 K 8 M which was not duly accounted for before Consolidation

proceedings could be partitioned and distributed amongst the proprietors or it could not be done so. The persons who have put in their

appearance before me felt aggrieved that the area which was in their possession for quite a long time had been wrongly distributed amongst the

proprietors. Their contention was that this area was added to the revenue estate of village Rana Majra as a result of diluvion. They argued that had

the diluvion papers been prepared in time, this area would have been duly accounted for at the time of remeasurement and they would have not

suffered any loss. Their contention found support from the report of the Consolidation Officer. I am of the view that the Consolidation staff did

commit a mistake, with regard to 460 K 8 M of land bordering Bharana. If the valuation of this area had been properly done in the presence of the

villagers at the spot, the mistake would have been detected at the very time and corresponding entries would have been made with regard to this

area in the Naksha Haqdarwar. I am of the view that the consolidation authorities below have erred in distributing this patch of land amongst the

proprietors.

The scheme in the present case was confirmed on 11.12.1978 while the present report has been made on 20.2.1984 by the Consolidation

Officer. Ordinarily the reference should have been made within the prescribed limitation. Keeping in view the fact that the confirmation of the

scheme lead to injustice to quite a good number of persons, I deem it fit to condone the delay in the present case. Accordingly I set aside the

repartition of this land amongst the proprietors. As the area to the extent of 460 K8 M has wrongly been taken as Beshi. I amend the scheme to

the extent that this land shall not to be treated as Beshi. It requires to be reascertained as to who were the actual occupants of this land before

consolidation.

In the light of discussion made above, the case is remanded to the Consolidation Officer with the direction that he shall reascertain the position

regarding the possession of 460K 8M of land which is involved in the present reference. He shall reallot this land to the concerned persons

keeping in view the other provisions of the scheme. The Consolidation Officer shall also afford an opportunity of being heard to all the concerned

persons.

A bare perusal of the order annexure P2 and P3 reveals that the Director, Consolidation has not reviewed its earlier order but had tried to do

justice between the rightholders and the actual occupants of the Beshi land by clarifying the direction issued by the Director vide earlier order

annexure P2 to the Consolidation Officer for amending the scheme and in connection with preparation of repartition Shazra after ascertaining the

position regarding possession of 460 K8M of land. It was further brought to his notice that Beshi in the land of revenue estate of village Rana

Majra had taken place due to the alluvion action of river Jamuna. Consequently, it is not a case of that type where the Director under the delegated

powers of the government under Section 42 of the Act had exercised the jurisdiction twice. Consequently, no interference is called for in the order

annexure P3 except remarking that the Consolidation Officer shall amend the scheme after affording opportunity of hearing to all the proprietors of

revenue estate of village Rana Majra and after verifying whether the Beshi land was part of the original revenue estate of village Rana Majra and

after ascertaining the names of the actual occupants thereof this land came under the flow of river Jamuna and thereafter satisfying the claims of all

the proprietors of this village, shall allot the Beshi land to its occupants just before the initiation of consolidation proceedings.

It is strange that the respondents had expressed their inability to implement the said order of the Director Consolidation due to lack of adequate

staff, although the State is expected to have adequate staff for holding of consolidation proceedings in the land falling within its boundaries.

Consequently, the Consolidation Officer is directed to conclude the repartition proceedings preferably within three months from the date of receipt

of a copy of this order. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.