Sahi Ram vs State of Haryana

G.C. Mital, J. (Oral).

The facts of the case would show that the writ petition is wholly misconceived. Consolidation proceedings took place somewhere in 1960, in pursuance of which repartition was made amongst the rightholders. Sahi Ram petitioner has not shown if he was allotted any land in those proceedings.

In 1962 Ram Kanwar and his two brothers filed a petition under section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short ''the Act''), claiming proper allotment to them on the basis of their major portion. Amongst others two persons of the names of Sahi Ram were impleaded as respondents to that petition, but we are concerned with Sahi Ram son of Pokhar, who is the petitioner in this petition. Sahi Ram son of Pokhar was representing Panna Shamilat. By order dated 3rd July, 1964 (Annexure P.3), the Additional Director of Consolidation of Holdings ordered certain changes between Shamilat Deh and Smt. Parbati mother of Ram Kanwar and the other two applicants, before him as they had succeeded to the estate of Smt. Parbati. Sahi Ram son of Pokhar was present during the hearing of that case. He took no steps to impugn the order Annexure P.3. While implementing order Annexure P.3, wrong mutation was sanctioned. Since order Annexure P.3 was not correctly implemented, Ram Kanwar and his two brothers again moved a petition under section 42 of the Act. Sahi Ram was again present. The mistake in the mutation was detected and by order dated 20th April, 1978 (Annexure P.2) the Director issued a direction to correctly implement the order Annexure P.3. By order dated 20th June, 1978 (Annexure P.1), order Annexure P.3 was correctly implemented. While deciding the matter under order Annexure P.1, Sahi Ram son of Pokhar was not present, although other cosharers of the Shamilat Panna were present. The aforesaid order has been impugned by Sahi Ram son of Pokhar and the main ground is that he was not heard before passing orders Annexures P.1 to P.3.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that Sahi Ram son of Pokhar petitioner was present when Annexures P.2 and P.3 were passed. Therefore, orders Annexures P.2 and P.3 cannot be quashed.

As regards order Annexure P.1, it is simply an order to give effect to orders Annexures P.2. It is not shown before me that order Annexure P.3 has not been correctly implemented by order Annexure P.1. Unless that is shown, whether he was present or not is hardly relevant.

As already noticed above, changes were being effected between Khasra numbers to be allotted to Shamilat Deh and to Ram Kanwar and his brothers and for serving the proprietary body on behalf of Shamilat Deh only general notice has to be issued, which was issued in this case and some of the rightholders put in their appearance. According to the decision of this Court in Biru and another v. Suraj Bhan and others, 1983 PLJ 216 (F.B.) representation of some of the cosharers would be on behalf of the entire proprietors and would bind all of them.

The most important thing to be noticed in this case is that Sahi Ram is not claiming ownership or title in the land in dispute. All that he has pleaded is that he has been in possession of certain Khasra numbers, which form part of orders Annexures P.2 and P.3. Unless he has title as landowner or as a tenant or in any other capacity, the Consolidation Authorities would not recognise him and he can have no grievance whether the Khasra numbers in his possession are allotted to one landowner or the other. That is why, when the Khasra numbers in his possession (assuming that he is in possession) were allotted in the first instance of Shamilat Deh, he did not raise his finger and again he did not raise his finger when they were allotted to Smt. Parbati vide order Annexure P.3. It has not been shown that person in possession without any right can be an interested person within the meaning of the Act and entitled to notice. Hence, on this ground as well the petition is devoid of merit.

For the reasons recorded above, this writ petition is dismissed but with no order as to costs.