Gram Panchayat, Hirdapur vs Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab

H.S. Bedi, J.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Mr. Gurcharan Singh, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in view of the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat Kakran v. Addl. Director of Consolidation and another, 1997(4) RCR(Civil) 498 : JT 1997(8) S.C. 430, the petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 was not maintainable after a long period since finalisation of the consolidation proceedings. We have considered this submission of the learned counsel and find that it lacks merit. The Hon''ble Supreme Court was not dealing with the reversion of Bachat land to the share holders in the aforesaid cited case. It is not disputed by the Gram Panchayat that the land in question is Bachat land. The question of limitation is, therefore, not relevant in the facts of the case. Faced with this situation, Mr. Gurcharan Singh has argued that once the consolidation proceedings had been finalized, the Director Consolidation was precluded from interfering in the matter as the matter had to be determined by the Collector under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 in view of the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat Nurpur v. State of Punjab and others, 1997(3) RCR(Civil) 47 : 1997(1) P.L.J. 268, this argument is equally without any merit. Admittedly, there is not dispute that the land in question belongs to the proprietors of the village who have been given their shares prorata. We find no merit in this writ petition. Consequently the writ petition is dismissed.