Om Parkash vs Addl. Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab - Petitioners

M.S Liberahan, J.

Reply of respondent No. 3 has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has claimed in this writ petition that vide the impugned order, Director, Consolidation was not competent to determine the question of title between the petitioner and respondents to the effect whether Gurdev Singh sold 8 bighas or 12 bighas of land before consolidation. Although during consolidation proceedings as far back as 1962, possession of 12 bighas were given to the petitioner in lieu of the land in their possession before consolidation per Khatoni prepared in the year 1960, in 1994 on the application of the respondents, the Director Consolidation determined the above mentioned question of title inter se the parties and came to the conclusion that it was 8 bighas of land and not 12 bighas by implication under the garb and colour of correction in the khatoni for the year 1988.

We are of the considered view that there is no dispute with the proposition of law that the Consolidation authority cannot determine the question of title inter se the parties even by implication. The parties will be at liberty to get their title determined by the civil Court in accordance with law. The question of possession which is again disputed shall also be determined by the Civil Court. Any observation made by the Consolidation authority with respect to the title or possession shall not be taken note of by the civil Court. It is made clear that since no relief has been claimed against respondent No. 3, writ petition is dismissed qua respondent No. 3. However, this will not bar any remedy to the petitioner if available against respondent No. 3 in any appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he has taken objection with respect to the limitation and inordinate delay in filing the petition under Section 42 which has not been dealt with by the authority at the time of passing the impugned order after lapse of 30 years. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the observations of Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat Village, Kanonda v. Director, Consolidation of Holdings and others, 1989(2) R.R.R. 554 : 1990 PLJ 213 the effect that the authority should decide the question of limitation first and then go into the questions of fact. In our considered view objection raised does not survive in view of our observations made in the earlier part of this order. Dismissed.