Gurdial Singh vs Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings Punjab and another

A.D. Koshal, J.—The facts leading to this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are these: Consolidation of Holding under the East Punjab Holdings (consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) took place and was finalized in village Saifiabad. Tehsil and District Kapurthala, during the year 1962 on the 22nd of April, 1969, Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 filed a petition u/s 42 of the Act praying that a watercourse and a path for their Kurrah be provided. That petition was accepted by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab Amritsar (respondent No 1) on the 28th of August, 1989, in so far as the prayer relating to the provision of a path was concerned and it was directed that half of the land required for the path be taken from the land allotted to Respondents Nos 2 to 4 and the other half from that owned by the Petitioner. The order is challenge i before me inter alia on the ground that it was passed without jurisdiction inasmuch as Respondent No. 1 had no power at all to deprive lie petitioner of his land without awarding compensation to him

The relevant portion of the scheme has been made a part of the record it provides a reservation of 45 Kanals in Marias of land for paths and the use of the village Panchyat It is further stated there in-

If the area reserved for new paths does not prove to be sufficient for purpose, the shamilat deh shall be drawn upon to the exent of the deficiency.

It is not disputed that new path chalked out during consolidation was taken from the area measuring 45 Kanals 15 Marias above mentioned No reason is forth coming as to why the Shamilat deh land was not utilized for the purpose of providing the path in question if the reserved area was no longer available for the purpose. Burdening the petitioner with half the area required for providing a path to the lands of Respondents Nos 2 to 4 clearly, therefore, contravenes the scheme and as no compensation was given to the petitioner by the impugned order, it must be held to have been passed without jurisdiction in accordance with the dictum in Gurdial Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab and Ors. (1967) 69 P.L. R. 689 and is quashed as such. In view of this conclusion the other grounds of attack against it need not be gene in to. There will be no order as to costs.