Bhagwan Singh and Others vs The Director, Consolidation of Holdings and Others

N.K. Kapoor, J.—Petitioners seek issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order passed by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings Punjab, dated 23.6.1987 or for issuance of any other writ, order or direction as the Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

Respondents No. 2 to 15 filed a petition u/s 42 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act against respondent Nos. 16 to 24 as well as the petitioners making a prayer that Jumla Mustarka Malkan Khewat measuring 143 K 9 Marlas may be redistributed amongst the right holders according to their shares. After notice to the concerned parties, Director, Consolidation of Holdings examined and came to the conclusion that the Bachat land, in fact, measures 138 Kanals 9 Marlas and relying upon the decision in Civil Writ Petition No. 877 and 892 of 1966 (Pala Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.) ordered for defining the shares of the right holders in respect of this Bachat land after examining the relevant record and hearing the affected right holders. It is this order which has been challenged by the petitioners on the following grounds; (i) that the petition u/s 42 had been filed after 30 years of the Consolidation of Holdings which took place in the village in the year 1957-58 and so the petition ought to have been dismissed being belated; (ii) that all necessary/proper parties were not impleaded and so the petition ought to have been dismissed; (iii) that the order passed by the Director is a con speaking order; and (iv) that the decision arrived at by the Director, Consolidation is unwarranted by law, pleadings of the parties as well as on merit of the case.

Pursuance to the notice issued by the Court, contesting respondents 2 to 14 and 16 to 24 have filed a joint written statement and have controverted the material averments made in the petition. By way of preliminary objection, it has been stated that the impugned order stood implemented at the time of admission of the writ petition and after its implementation mutation had also been entered and sanctioned in the name of right holders of the village on 14.6.1988. So in view of this, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. On merit, it has been stated that there is no limitation to approach the Director, Consolidation of Holdings u/s 42 of the Act. Otherwise too, the order passed by the authorities is perfectly legal and just. The writ petition being devoid of any substance deserves to be dismissed with costs.

Facts as have been noticed above are not in dispute i.e. there is approximately 138 Kanals 9 Marlas of land known as Bachat land (Mushtarka Malkan) in the village. As per scheme of consolidation of holdings, pro rata cut was imposed upon all the right holders of the village and so such an area came into existence. Since the share of each individual shareholder had not been mentioned in the revenue papers, prayer was made by the respondents for the necessary correction of the relevant entry thereby showing the area of each one of the co-owners.

Assailing the order of the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petition u/s 42 having been filed after a gap of 30 years deserves to be dismissed on this account alone. According to the counsel no reason has been assigned for this long silence. In any case, the concerned authority ought to have examined this aspect of the matter before granting the relief sought. In addition thereto, the counsel argued that the petitioners are in possession of the land which has ripened into ownership and so the petitioners have a legitimate right to raise the question of title which can be determined only by a civil Court and till such determination the authorities under the Consolidation of Holdings Act have no jurisdiction to order for determining the share of each shareholder or partitioning of any joint land. Accordingly, the order of Director, Consolidation of Holding deserves to be quashed. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of this Court in case reported as Gurmej Singh alias Iqbal Singh v. The State of Punjab and Ors. 1983 1 P.L.J. 436, Sadr Anjman Ahmedia v. Director Consolidation and Ors. AIR 1983 P&H 383, and Ramji Dass (dead) by his L.R. v. The State of Punjab and Ors., 523.

Reliance placed by the petitioners on the aforesaid judgments is wholly misplaced. Bar of limitation for invoking the jurisdiction of the authority u/s 42 of the Act is only with regard to the orders passed by the authorities under the Act. In the present case, no such order was challenged by the respondents. They have only prayed that their shares in the joint holding be specified. Thus the plea of limitation is devoid of any merit. Similarly, there is no substance in the plea of the petitioners that since question of title has been raised by the petitioners, the impugned order could not be passed by the authority till such a question of title is determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction. The argument advanced is wholly fallacious. There is no averment in the petition to the effect that they have become owners by adverse possession. To claim such a relief one has not only to allege but to prove on record that his possession is adverse to the true owners. In any case, respondents prayer was only for defining their share in the Bachat land and no further. Thu$, I find no ground to quash or vary the order passed by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Annexure P-2. In fact, the order has been passed on the basis of the decision of this Court in case reported as Pala Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. (1968) 70 P.L.R. 1002 (F.B.). In Para No. 7 of the judgment, it has been stated that where the land left over being in excess or Bachat had been shown in the revenue records as owned by "Jamla Mushtarqa Malkan", it is to be shown by making specification of shares of the right-holders according to the area held by each of the co-shares. Precisely for this reason, application was filed which has been rightly granted by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings.

Learned counsel for the respondents has also brought to my notice that pursuance to this order, their shares have already been recorded in the revenue papers and stands duly reflected as per Annexure R-2.

Thus, finding no merit in this writ petition, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.