Pirthi Singh vs State of Haryana and others

I.S. Tiwana, J. (Oral)

The petitioners impugn the order of the Director Consolidation of Holdings dated 5.10.1978 (Annexure P.1) as totally without jurisdiction. According to their counsel, the Director had no competency to determine the question of title raised him by the respondents i.e., 4 to 6. In order to appreciate the controversy the following few facts deserve to be noticed.

The private respondents concededly acquired proprietary rights in 50 Bighas 1 Biswa of land belonging to Shamlat Patti, Badhapur in view of the promulgation of Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 (for short `the Act''). In the light of this acquisition of ownership rights these respondents made an application before the Director for claiming a share in the remaining Shamlat Patti land which as a result of the re partition had been distributed amongst other coowners. The Director without examining the matter in depth has conveniently ordered the grant of a share to the respondents in the remaining Shamlat Patti land. To me, the learned counsel appears to be wholly right when he submits that by virtue of this acquisition by operation of law, the petitioners only became owners of the land in their occupancy and, by no stretch of imagination, could they acquire any other right in the remaining land of the Shamlat Patti. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the Director Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana was not competent to settle the question of title and was, thus, not justified in passing the impugned order. In the light of the above, I set aside the order Annexure P.1, but with no order as to costs.