Nar Singh and Others vs The State of Punjab and Others

J.N. Kaushal, J.—Consolidation operations were undertaken in village Nandgarh, Tehsil Muktsar, District Ferozepur. According to the scheme framed, the area of the whole village was divided into two blocks ''A'' and ''B'' according to the value of the land and it was laid down that in each block every landowner will be given a plot at the place where he had his major portion before consolidation. It was further laid down that in case the plot of more than one landowner come at the same place, the landowner whose percentage of land was highest at that place would be given his plot there. Nar Singh and others, petitioners, had their fields at three places in block ''A'' namely, (1) at Khasra Nos. 288 and 290, (2) at Khasra Nos. 373, and (3) at Khasra Nos. 319 and 320. According to the petitioners their percentage at No. (3) was highest, namely, 21 per cent; at No. (2) it was only 13 per cent and at No. (1) it was 14 per cent. Mahla Singh, respondent No. 4, had fields at two places in block ''A'': namely, (1) Khasra No. 379, and (2) at Khasra No. 327. His percentage at No. (1) was 16 per cent and at No. (2) was 13 per cent.

The Assistant Consolidation Officer fitted the petitioners in block ''A'' at their first major portion, namely, at Khasra Nos. 319 and 320, while Mahla Singh, respondent No. 4, was fitted in block ''A'' at Khasra No. 379. Some objections were filed by respondent No. 4 before the Consolidation Officer, but they were rejected. An appeal was, consequently, filed by him before the Settlement Officer and in the appeal. Nar Singh petitioner was impleaded as a respondent. The Settlement Officer, vide his order dated 8th September, 1960, shifted Mahla Singh respondent No. 4 from the site of Khasra No. 379 and also shifted the petitioners; Nar Singh and others, from the site of Khasra Nos. 319 and 320. Against this order, an appeal was filed by the petitioners u/s 21 (4) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, but the appeal was dismissed. A revision petition u/s 42 of the Act was filed before the Director of Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab but this was also dismissed on 23rd of May, 1962. It is against this order that the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed.

The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the order of the Settlement Officer, dated 8th September, 1960, is without jurisdiction inasmuch as he has passed that order with a view to punish the petitioners for the alleged tampering of the revenue record. The learned counsel vehemently argues that no power is given under the law to change the provisions of the scheme only because the Settlement Officer felt satisfied that certain entries were tampered with by the petitioners in collusion with the Patwari. In order to appreciate this contention, it will be proper to mention certain facts which have been found by the Settlement Officer. There were three fields Nos. 319, 320 and 321, adjoining each other. In field No. 321 was the garden of Nar Singh and others, petitioners. Field No. 320 was in the possession of Jagir Singh, Mal Singh etc. and field No. 319 was again in the possession of Nar Singh and others, petitioners. It is alleged that Nar Singh and others, petitioners, with a view to get benefit colluded with the Patwari and got the record changed in such a way that field No 320 was shown in their possession and field No. 321 in possession of Jagir Singh, Mal Singh etc. This change was brought about with a purpose, namely, in order to raise the percentage of the petitioners, since fields Nos. 319 and 320 adjoin each other. If the unchanged record was kept in view, then the percentage of the petitioners would be lower, since in between fields Nos. 319 and 321 there comes field No. 320, which was in the possession of Jagir Singh, Mal Singh etc. The learned Settlement Officer has dealt with this matter in the following words:

All this clearly goes to show that this (tampering of the record) has been done by the Patwari in collusion with Nar Singh etc. with a mala fide intention. Since this is a glaring instance of its kind there is no reason why these entries should not be disbelieved. Keeping these things in view howsoever proper it may be to fix Nar Singh etc., at this place he must be punished for what he has done in collusion with the Patwari. Since fields Nos. 319 and 321 are not contiguous there being field No. 320 in possession of Jagir Singh, Mal Singh etc. in between, the percentage of the respondents Nar Singh etc. at this place are 12 per cent and 11 per cent in respect of 319 and 321 respectively, while the percentage of Mahla Singh is 13 per cent. There is, therefore, no reason why Mahla Singh should not get area at this place having higher percentage and Nar Singh should not be shifted to his second major portion. The Khata was joint as between Jagir Singh and Nar Singh and Mal Singh and the appellant, this has been now divided in consolidation. To punish Nar Singh etc. for what they have done, it will be too proper to bring Mahla Singh appellant to the place where Nar Singh has been fitted and to fix Nar Singh etc. at the place where Mahla Singh has got this area. I accordingly order as under". Mr. Anand Sarup, learned counsel for the petitioners, argues that there is no basis for the Settlement Officer to come to the conclusion that the entries were changed at the instance of the petitioners. He, however, assumes for the sake of argument that this was so (although he vehemently denies that the change was made at the instance of the petitioners). No power, according to him, vested in the Settlement Officer to pass an order with a view to punish the petitioners for their supposed offence of tampering with the revenue record. The Settlement Officer should, at the most have ignored the changed entries and acted on the basis of the original entries I agree with him. The scheme is the basis on which plots have to be allotted by the consolidation authorities and it is not open to any officer exercising powers under the Act to violate the scheme only because in his opinion, a certain right-holder has tried to gain an undue advantage by clever means. Mr. K.C. Puri, learned counsel for the State, could not urge anything substantial against this proposition. All that he could say was that the percentage of Nar Singh and others, petitioners, would be lower as compared to Mahla Singh respondent if the original entries were adhered to, because, according to him, the percentage of Mahla Singh along with others would be 13 per cent at Khasra No. 320 and the percentage of the petitioners would be 12 per cent at Khasra No. 319 and 11 per cent at Khasra No. 321. Mr. Anand Sarup contended that Mahla Singh had his highest percentage at Khasra No. 379 being 16 per cent. The percentage of the petitioners would be highest at Khasra Nos. 288 and 292, being 14 per cent. It is, however, not for this Court to decide as to which right-holder should be fitted at which place, since the order of the learned Settlement Officer is apparently without jurisdiction and there is a manifest error of law in his order, it cannot be allowed to stand The subsequent orders passed by the Assistant Director and the Additional Director of Consolidation of Holdings would meet the same fate inasmuch as they only confirmed the order of the Settlement Officer. It is therefore, ordered that all the three orders are hereby quashed. A direction will, however, be issued to the Settlement Officer to decide the appeal, which was filed before him by Mahla Singh (being appeal No. 377 of 1960) in accordance with the provisions of the scheme and on the basis of the original unhampered entries. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.