Sukhbir Singh and Others vs Assistant Director, Consolidation and Others

Jasbir Singh, J.—On account of some subsequent development, whether order passed earlier, can be reviewed by the Consolidation

authorities, is a question Which needs to be looked into in this case. This writ petition has been filed to lay challenge to an order dated 15.11.1989

(P-3), passed by respondent No. 1.

Heard.

It is an admitted fact that consolidation proceedings took place in the village in the year 1954-55. Village circular road was left on southern side

of a plot, owned by respondent No. 3. That was low lying area, the villagers were feeling difficulty in using the same. They filed an appeal to the

authorities and after hearing the parties, passage bearing No. 134/1, was carved out from land owned by respondent No. 3. His remaining land

was numbered as Khasra No. 134/2. The situation, as stated above, is shown in site plan Annexure P-1, which is placed on record. The petitioner

and others have constructed their houses on the passage so provided.

After many years, respondent No. 3 filed an application u/s 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation)

Act, 1948 (in short ''the Act''), with a prayer to cancel passage shown in Red colour in the site plan bearing Khasra No. 134/1, on a ground that a

metaled road stood constructed through Khasra No. 49. Situation of the road has also been shown in site plan annexure P-1.

Perusal of the site plan makes it very clear that if the passage bearing No. 134/1 is cancelled, no passage will be available to the house owned

by the petitioner, which is shown in Blue colour in the above site plan.

In his application, respondent No. 3 impleaded only the Gram Panchayat and the affected persons were not joined as party. Respondent No. 1

accepted application filed by respondent No. 3, u/s 42 of the Act and cancelled path bearing Khasra No. 134/1, the said area was allotted to

respondent No. 3. Land falling in Khasra No. 21//19/2, which was earlier given to respondent No. 3 against that passage, was returned to the

Gram Panchayat. Interest of the affected parties was not noticed.

When the petitioner came to know about the above said order, he filed an application before the Gram Panchayat, stating that if the passage

falling in Khasra No. 134/1 is cancelled, he will have no access to his house. When no action was taken, he filed this writ petition and while issuing

notice of motion, status quo was ordered.

It is contention of counsel for the petitioner that the Authorities under the Act, when exercising power u/s 42, have no power to review an order

passed earlier.

It is reflected in the order under challenge that on an earlier point of time, on an appeal filed by the villagers, passage bearing No. 134/1 was

carved out from the land owned by respondent No. 3 and he was compensated by giving him land in Khasra No. 21//19/2. After many years, a

road stood constructed in Khasra No. 49 and there is no ground to recall an order passed providing above passage.

As per established law, when exercising power u/s 42 of the Act, the authorities have no power to review order earlier passed. Reference can

be made to a judgment of a full Bench of this Court in Deep Chand and Others Vs. Addl. Director, Consolidation of Holdings and Another,

wherein, when dealing with a similar situation, it was specifically opined that the judicial and quasi judicial Tribunals have no power to review or

alter a judgment or order, earlier passed. Furthermore, the petitioner, who was also affected, was not impleaded when application u/s 42 of the

Act was filed by respondent No. 3. As is reflected in the site plan, petitioner''s house falls on passage bearing No. 134/1. If that path is cancelled,

the petitioner will have no access to his house. u/s 42 of the Act, a mistake, which may have been caused, when the scheme was prepared or

confirmed, re-partition made or any order passed, can only be corrected. No such defect has been corrected. In the present case merely because

a road was constructed, the passage granted earlier, cannot be cancelled. The order passed is without jurisdiction, as such cannot be sustained.

Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed and order dated 15.11.1989 (P-3) is set aside.