Lal Singh vs State of Punjab

A.S. Bains, J. (Oral)

The petitioners are rightholders of village Lakhnaur, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar. They are all small proprietors. It is alleged in the petition that the consolidation of holdings took place in their village about 35 years ago under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1912 and all the rightholders were allotted their respective taks with their consent and since then they are in possession of their respective holdings and have been cultivating the same.

A notification under section 14(1) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the `Act'') was issued on the 23rd July, 1974 on the basis of the report made by the Consolidation Officer. The report is annexed with the petition as Annexure P.2 and the notification as Annexure P3 and the present petition has been filed by 99 rightholders of the village.

No reply has been filed by the respondents in spite of the service.

The only question for determination in this petition is whether the impugned notification was at all needed for reconsolidation in the village? Under Section 14(1) of the Act the notification can only be issued for the purpose of better cultivation of lands and to consolidate the fragmented lands. There is no other purpose for the issuance of the notification. The notification cannot be issued for the purpose of reservation of land for common purposes. Section 14(1) under which the notification is issued is in the following terms:

"14. Government may of its own accord or on application declare its intention to make scheme for consolidation of holdings(1) With the object of consolidating the holdings in any estate or group of estates or any part thereof for purposes of better cultivation of land therein, the State Government may of its own motion or on application made in this behalf declare by notification and by publication in the prescribed manner in the estate or estates concerned its intention to make a scheme for the consolidation of holdings in such estate or estates or part thereof as may be specified.

From a reading of the aforesaid provision it is plain that the notification, can only be issued with the object of consolidating the holdings and preventing fragmentation of agricultural holdings. In the instant case, there is no material on the record to show that the notification was issued for the purpose of better cultivation. The report of the Consolidation Officer seems to be mala fide. In his report (Annexure P.2) he has mentioned that the total number of the rightholders of the village is 35, out of which, the statements of 29 willing rightholders have been recorded, whose percentage comes to 83 and the percentage of those owners of the land comes to 80. These right holders are willing to pay the consolidation fee. Against this report the petitioners have pointed out in their representation Annexure P.4 to the Director, Consolidation of Holdings that there were 148 landholders and the total area of the village owned by the proprietors is 388 acres and that only a very few landholders owning only 70 acres of land in the village have moved for fresh reconsolidation. The only reason given by those who wanted re consolidation was that in the earlier consolidation there was no place reserved for School or Gurdwara. The reservation of land for the purpose of School or Gurdwara is not the object of the consolidation although it is incidental to the consolidation. Once it is found that the consolidation is needed for better cultivation and to consolidate the fragmented holdings, then reservation for common purposes can be made in the scheme. But if there is no fragmentation then there is no need for reconsolidation and no case is made out for better cultivation rather if the reconsolidation leads to dislocation and the unsettle the settled matters, then the notification cannot be issued. The averments made in the petition by the petitioners are not controverted either by the Consolidation Authorities or by the private rightholders. None appeared on their behalf and filed any written statement. In Mahant Som Dass v. State of Punjab and another, 1966 P.L.R. 813, it was observed as under :

"That a notification under section 14(1) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act cannot be issued for the sole substantive purpose of reserving land for common purposes in assigning land to a Panchayat without consolidating the holdings. The powers of the Government to meddle with citizens property under the Act is strictly confined within the four corners of the power conferred by it and if Section 14(1) of the Act does not in terms, express or by necessary intendment, justify a notification for reserving land for common purposes without consolidating the holdings, the High Court is competent and indeed under a duty, to strike down a notification which seeks to reserve land for common purposes under the Section. Notification indicating Government''s intention to start consolidation proceedings in a village owned by one person, the object being to reserve land for common purposes would be outside the scope of the statute and therefore ineffective."

For the reasons recorded I am of the view that the impugned notification was not issued for the purpose of better cultivation but for an ulterior motive. Accordingly, the same cannot be sustained and is quashed and the petition is allowed but there will be no order as to costs as there is no representation on behalf of the respondents.