Bahadur Singh and others vs Additional Director, Consolidation, Punjab, Chandigarh and others

D.S. Tewatia, J.—The petitioners, residents of village Adamke, Tehsil Mansa have impugned the order dated 10th May, 1968 of the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, who vide that order held that the land described as Banjar Qadim comprised in Khasra Nos. 457, 217, 235/1278, 475/414, 416, 417, 418, 419 and 420 had to be treated as property of respondent No. 4 and land in lieu of that area had to be allotted to him during consolidation operations This order was carried out by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 21st June 1970 Bahadur Singh and Nand Singh petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 challenged the order of the Consolidation Officer before the Additional Director in the year 1973. The said review application had been dismissed vide his order dated 7th November, 1974 which has been impugned herein.

The petitioners seek the quashing of the impugned order dated 7th November, 1974 of the Additional Director on the ground that the land comprised in Khasra numbers abovementioned as per Sharat-Wazib-ul-arz in the year 1960 BK was impartible reserved for common purposes and also prohibited from being cultivated. It is claimed that during consolidation operations this area was in possession of the Panchayat and in the consolidation scheme it was to recognised and was kept reserved for common purposes and finally was allotted to the Gram Panchayat. The Additional Director, it is alleged, upset the scheme as also the allotment carried out in pursuance thereof by the impugned order without taking into consideration the sharat wazib-ul-arz.

In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 4, it has been urged that after the passing of the impugned order and before filing of the present writ petition, he had alienated almost whole of the area excepting a few Marlas of land, but the alienees have not been impleaded as respondents to the writ petition It has also been urged that the petition suffers from inordinate delay and laches and as such deserves to be dismissed on this score.

While there may be merit in the ground on which the impugned order has been sought to be quashed, one, however, cannot lose sight of the fact that Gram Panchayat was a party before the Additional Director and primarily it was the Gram Panchayat, which was to safeguard its interest. The petitioners have approached this Court partly as residents who are in some measure affected if the land meant for common purposes is going to be taken away and partly in public spirit, but in my opinion they have taken too long in coming to this Court. It is their case that they came to know of the order only when the Consolidation Officer sought to carry out that order As already observed, the order of the Consolidation Officer is dated 21st June, 1970 against which two of the petitioners bad filed the revision. That means that in the year 1970 they had come to know about the impugned order. Even then neither they took the step of having the same reviewed or lay a challenge against it in this Court. They sought it to be reviewed only after 3 years of the date of order of the Consolidation Officer. The review petition was dismissed inter alia on the ground that some of the right holders had challenged the earlier order in this Court through Civil Writ Petition No 1899 of 1973 which is said to have been dismissed in limine on 11th January, 1974. The reviewing authority otherwise too found no merit in the review application.

The petitioners having taken too long in coming to this Court and having thus allowed the interest of bona fide transferees to intervene in the land in dispute in this long period and the alienees having not been made party to this writ petition, I dismiss the petition as suffering from inordinate delay and laches.

The counsel for the petitioners, however, cited Satish Kapur v. State of Haryana 1982 P.L.J. 129 and contended that once the petition is admitted, the same cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay.

There is no dispute with the proposition laid down In Satish Kapur''s Case (Supra), That was a writ petition directed against acquisition of land of the petitioner therein, who continued to be in possession thereof and the acquiring authority had not taken any step to complete the acquisition proceedings for years and then the writ petition was sought to be dismissed by the acquiring authority on the ground of laches without looking into their own conduct. Present is a case where as a result of delay on the part of the petitioners, interests of bona fide purchasers have intervened and the petitioners had not even taken the trouble of impleading the bona fide purchasers as respondents to the petition.

For the reasons aforementioned this petition is dismissed but with no order as to costs.