Karan Singh vs State of Haryana

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.—The petitioner, through this writ petition, has sought for quashing the impugned orders Annexures P3 dated 28.1.1976 passed by Consolidation Officer, Rohtak, P4 dated 20.10.76 of Asstt Director (Consolidation of Holdings) Haryana, Rohtak, P7 dated 23.11.1978 of Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana, Chandigarh and P8 dated 13.11.1078 passed by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana on the ground that the Consolidation authorities had no jurisdiction without impleading the Central Govt. or Rehabilitation Department making a party to the proceedings. It is asserted that the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Chandigarh passed the perfunctory orders, Annexures P7 and P8 in which neither the facts were discussed, nor the speaking orders were passed as to why the explanation of delay was not satisfactory. The proceedings were quasijudicial in nature.

The facts leading to the instant case are that the land measuring 6 Bighas 19 Biswas bearing Khasra Nos. 5850, 5851, 5857/2, 5855/5759/2, 5860, 5861/1, 5865, 5893/5964 and 5965 min situated in village Garhwal, Tehsil Gohana, Distt. Sonepat was put to auction on 22.1.1976. The petitioner gave highest bid of Rs. 28,000/. Against this auction, one Ram Chand and others filed appeal/revision, but the same was dismissed. The auction in favour of petitioner Karan Singh was confirmed by the Deputy Secretary, RehabilitationcumSettlement Commissioner vide his order dated 18.4.1977. Aggrieved against this order, Ram Chand and others filed a petition under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954, before the Delegatee of the Central Government but the same was dismissed in limine on 22.6.1977. The possession of the land purchased by (the petitioner was delivered to him on 27.12.1977. Respondent No. 5 Giani was directed to harvest his crops standing in the field upto 4.12.1978. Later on it came to the notice of the authorities that Khasra No. 5893 was inadvertently sold and in lieu of this Khasra No. land measuring 3 Kanals 4 Marlas was allotted in consolidation operation. A reference was made by the Naib Tehsildar (Sales), Sonepat for the cancellation of auction of Khasra No. 5893. The said reference was accepted by the Deputy Secretary, RehabilitationcumSettlement Commissioner vide order dated 17.8.1979 and it was directed that proportionate amount be refunded to the petitioner i.e. auction purchaser. In lieu of khasra Nos. which were sold to the petitioner on 28.1.1976 after consolidation operation, Rect. No 138/1/1, 2/1, Rect No. 139 Killa No. 5, Rect. No. 118, Killa No 25/4, Rect No. 135, Killa No. 17, 24/1, Rect. No. 150 killa No. 1/1 were allotted.

The case of the petitioner is that he came to know that Consolidation Officer, Rohtak, had withdrawn Killa No. 119/25 vide his order dated 28.1.1976 on the application of Surja, respondent No 6, and on the application of one Chandgi, Killa No. 38/1, 2 South was withdrawn and in its place Killa No. 135/17 northwest was allotted by the Assistant Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Rohtak, vide order dated 20.10.1976. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Central Government or the Rehabilitation Department was not made party to the proceedings by Consolidation Officer and the Assistant Director, Consolidation of Holdings. Copies of the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and Assistant Director are Annexures P3 and P4 respectively. The petitioner came to know about the abovesaid changes at the time of taking possession in December, 1977 and 1978. He filed a petition under section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. The same was dismissed by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana, without passing a speaking order and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. The petition was dismissed as timebarred.

I have considered the submissions of Mr. Malik. I am in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Central Govt. or the Rehabilitation Department which were necessary parties to the dispute before the Consolidation Officer and the Director (C/H) were not heard in the matter. Secondly, respondent No. 1, i.e. Director (C/H) had dismissed the appeal without assigning any reason and it has not been shown why the plea of limitation was not found satisfactory.

Under the facts and circumstances of the case, orders dated 28.1.1976, 13.11.1978 and 23.11.1978, passed by the Consolidation Officer, Assistant Director and those of Director, Consolidation of Holding, respectively, are quashed. The case is remanded to the Director (C/H) Haryana, Chandigarh, who will decide the petitions filed by the petitioner under section 42 of the Act afresh in accordance with law after giving full opportunity of hearing to him. It is made clear that the question of limitation is not to be raised by the Director. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana, Chandigarh, on 15.4.1991, for seeking further directions

The writ petition is disposed of in the terms as indicated above.