Raj Kumari vs State of Haryana

S.S. Grewal, J.—This writ petition relates to quashment of order dated 3.6.1989 Annexure P/5 passed by the Consolidation Officer and order dated 4.11.1993 Annexure P/6 passed by the Director, Consolidation, Haryana, Chandigarh, whereby the application under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) filed by the present writ petitioner against the order of the Consolidation Officer Annexure P/5 was dismissed.

According to the averments in the writ petition consolidation proceedings in village Hasanpur tehsil Palwal district Faridabad, commenced in the year 1979 and in scheme framed for consolidation proceedings, it was provided that every tenant at will shall be given equivalent area in Standard Acre according to his entitlement grade wise under his previous owners. Efforts would also be made to allot him the same area if it was in the ownership of his previous owners during the consolidation. Thereafter repartition proceedings under Section 21(1) of the Act was duly published on 22.8.1980 and on its basis Jamabandi was prepared and read over in the village and after final attestation by respondent No. 2 it was consigned to the Recordroom. It was next pleaded that from the entries of Jamabandi for the year 198081 (Annexure P2) land measuring 7 kanals comprised in Rectangle No. 110/3/2 was shown in the ownership of Smt. Kalyani Bai etc. and Chatru, Matru and Dhan Singh sons of Dal Singh were entered as tenants. It was also pleaded that Khasra No. 3442 did not belong to Lekhu Ram or Kalyani Bai as per preconsolidation Jamabandi for the year 196970 Annexure P3. It was further pleaded that Kalyani Bai ejected Chatru, Matru and Dhan Singh her tenants according to law and took back possession of the said land from the tenants and this fact was also implemented in Jamabandi for the year 198485 where Kalyani Bai etc. are shown as full owners from whom the petitioner purchased this land after paying valuable consideration vide registered sale deed. Mutation No. 2924 with respect to the said transaction was duly sanctioned on 1.7.1988 and in Jamabandi for the year 198485 Annexure P4 the land in dispute is shown in the selfcultivation of Smt. Kalyani Bai etc. Meanwhile the petitioner came to know from the Patwari Halqa that the area sold to her vide registered sale deed dated 1.7.1988 and been entered in the tenancy of Kanwar Pal respondent No. 3 under the orders of the Consolidation Officer, Gurgaon respondent No. 2 vide order dated 3.6.1989. It was also pleaded that the said order was passed at the back of the petitioner without impleading her as predecessorininterest of Kalyani Bai and others from whom she had purchased the land in suit and that even no notice was sent to her. It was further pleaded that the order of the Director Consolidation dated 4.11.1993 is against the provisions of scheme because Field Nos. 3442 and 3443 which were the previous field numbers of Killa Nos. 110/3/2 and not the field No. 3097 which belonged to Smt. Kalyani Bai etc. It was also pleaded that the aforesaid orders Annexures P5 and P6 are against the law and village scheme and the same are liable to be set aside.

In their joint written statement respondent Nos. 1 and 2 pleaded that Kanwar Lal was a tenant on old Khasra No. 3097 and 3442; that Khasra No. 3097 was in the ownership of Smt. Kalyani Bai whereas Khasra No. 3442 was owned by Sh. Babu Ram etc. before consolidation. At the time of repartition under Section 21(1) of the Act Khasra No. 23442 was allotted to Smt. Kalyani Bai and out of the said land Killa No. 110/3/2 which too comprised a part of Khasra No. 3442 was given to Smt. Kalyani Bai. It was pleaded that Kanwar Pal was the tenant of both Kalyani Bai and Balu Ram and as such he was put into possession of Khasra No. 3442 vide impugned order passed by the Consolidation Officer, Rohtak, Annexure P5, and remained in cultivating possession thereof subsequently as well. It was further pleaded that the consolidation authorities have passed orders Annexures P5 and P6 according to the village scheme and that the present petitioner could not be impleaded as party as she was not the owner of the land in dispute which was purchased by her at a subsequent stage in the year 1988.

The learned counsel for the parties were heard.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not impleaded as a party in proceedings before the Consolidation Officer in which the impugned order Annexure P5 was passed and no notice was sent to her and on that account the said order is liable to be set aside. The argument is devoid of any merit. Perusal of copy of order Annexure P5 shows that the same was passed on 3.6.1989 and at that time in spite of the proclamation none except Prithvi Raj appeared before the Consolidation Officer. The fact remains that the present petitioner filed application under Section 42 of the Act against Kanwar Pal respondent No. 3 and in that application after duly considering the case of the present petitioner on merits, the said application was dismissed, by the Director Consolidation vide order Annexure P6. The impugned order Annexure P6 reveals that Kanwar Pal respondent No. 3 has rightly been granted tenancy rights in Killa No. 110/3/2 measuring 7 kanals in lieu of his tenancy rights in Khasra No. 3097 in preconsolidation Jamabandi for the year 196970. The ownership of the aforesaid old Khasra number is mentioned in the name of Lekhu Ram husband of Kalyani Bai. Revenue entries further reveal that Kanwar Pal was continuously recorded as tenant at will from Kharif 1970 to Rabi 1980. The impugned order Annexure P6 passed by the Director Consolidation, in our view, does not suffer from any illegality or other legal infirmity. This petition is without any merit and the same is dismissed as such with no order as to costs.