Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhagwan Singh And Ors. vs The Director, Consolidation Of ... on 10 March, 1997
Equivalent citations: (1997)116PLR578
Author: T.H.B. Chalapathi
Bench: T.H.B. Chalapathi
JUDGMENT
M.S. Liberhan and T.H.B. Chalapathi, JJ.
1. Cause shown insufficient. Otherwise also learned counsel for the respondents has not seriously opposed restoration of the L.P.A.
2. The LPA is accordingly restored to its original number. At this stage, learned counsel for the parties agree that matter be heard on merits.
3. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of an order dated 6.9.1995 of the learned Single Judge, whereby writ petition of the petitioners impugning the order of re-partition of the Bachat land passed by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, was dismissed.
4. The grievance of learned counsel for the appellants are: (i) Since the consolidation of Holdings took place in the year 1957-58, seeking repartition of the Bachat land in 1986 suffers from laches and the land cannot be repartitioned; (ii) The appellants raised a question of title being in possession of the land for the last 40 years, which the Director, Consolidation had no jurisdiction to determine; (iii) Almost on the same reasoning the appellants contend that Director, Consolidation has no jurisdiction to deal with the Bachat land as a question of title is involved.
5. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon Sadr Anjman Ahmedia v. Director of Consolidation and Ors., 1983(1) Land Law reporter, 383; The Gram Panchayat Villahe Kanonda v. Director, Consolidation of Holdings and Ors., 1990 PLJ 213, Rattan Lal v. Deputy Commissioner, Rewari and Ors., 1996 PLJ 501, Civil Appeal No. 2000 of 1996 decided on 7.11.1996.
6. In order to determine the questions raised, the undisputed rather the conceded facts stated by learned counsel for the appellants at the Bar and emerging from the writ petition as well as the orders passed, run thus: The consolidation of holding in the village took place in the year 1957-58. The land was reserved, by applying a pro-rata cut, for a common purpose as envisaged by Section 18 read with Section 3 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention and Fragmentation) Act 1948, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The management of the land reserved for common purposes Under Section 23-A of the Act vested in Gram Panchayat though a husk of title remained with the owners, in view of the observations made in Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana and Ors. A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 859. The appellants who are co-proprietors continued to be owners of the land reserved for common purpose during consolidation of holdings.
7. In view of the facts stated above, it is only after the land utilised for common purpose, for which it was reserved, that the unutilised land which is known as Bachat land under the Act. Since it was laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court from the very inception of the Act that title of the land continued with the owners and it is on these premises that vires of the Act were upheld wherein the authorities were permitted to reserve some land by applying pro-rata cut without payment of compensation as required by Article 31 of the Constitution of India read with Article 300A. Question of repartition of land would arise with respect to the Bachat land only, i.e. unutilized land for common purpose. Thus, there cannot be any delay as envisaged by the Act which debars the authorities to repartition the land. Even otherwise, as observed in the earlier part of the judgment as well as the facts stated, the appellants as well as remaining proprietors of the village are co-owners of the Bachat land and they can seek repartition of the land. It cannot be envisaged that any limitation is prescribed for seeking the re-partition. Mere possession of some part of the land jointly owned would not debar the seeking of the repartition of the land, the question of possession will be taken care of at the time of repartition of the land. One cannot hold and be in possession of land in exccess of his right or share in the land because of mere possession on land more than his right to possess.
8. So far as the judgment cited by learned counsel for the appellants in Sadr Anjman Ahmedia's case (supra) with respect to delay, is concerned, it is not parimateria or relevant to the facts involved in the case in hand. There no questions of limitation or repartition of Bachat land were raised. Similarly facts of the case in Rattan Lai's case (supra) are not relevant and parimateria with the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Herein partition of Bachat land is only sought. So, the question of reasonable time does not arise.
9. We fail to comprehend how question of title arise in the present appeal when it is concededly admitted by learned counsel for the parties that land in dispute was reserved for a common purpose by applying a pro-rate cut and owners continued to be owners and in possession of the land in dispute. It is only the management which was passed over in the Gram Panchayat and that too solely for the purpose for which the land was reserved. Even the Gram Panchayat is not expected to earn out of the land meant for common purpose. No land can be reserved for the income of the Panchayat by applying pro-rata cut to the proprietors of land during consolidation proceedings. Reference may be made to Ajit Singh v. The State of Punjab and Anr., (1967) 69 P.L.R. 271 (SC) and Bhagat Ram and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., (1967)69 P.L.R. 287 (SC).
10. Once there is no question of title even prima-facie, arises for determination as observed earlier, we fail to comprehend, by merely saying that question of title arises, by the learned counsel for the respondents would not oust the jurisdiction of authorities to partition the land and Courts would not interfere in exercise of jurisdiction statutorily vested in the authority i.e. right of the Director, Consoliation to repartition the Bachat land under Consolidation of Holdings Act.
11. At this state, we may hasten to add that it has been brought to our notice that no appeal of adverse possession or the plea of title in the appellants was raised in the writ petition though the learned Single Judge has dealt with the matter, as a result of which the respondents were unable to produce on record a decree of the civil Court, where a suit for declaration filed by the appellants with respect their title stood dismissed as withdrawn on 3.10.1989. Copy of the order placed on records today is marked - 'X'.
12. So far judgments in civil appeal No. 200 of 1996 dated 7.11.1996 and in S.L.P. (C) 10352 of 1991 dated 21.11.1996 are concerned, these are not relevant to the facts of the present case. Therein the question which was raised before the Additional Director, Consolidation, was whether the land in dispute was Shamlat deh or not and as such, owned by the Gram Panchayat or was it owned by the proprietors of the village, which was a question of fact and the title required determination as such. Herein neither the question whether the land in dispute vests or does not vest in the Gram Panchayat, does not arise nor whether the land is a Shamlat deh or not arise. It is admittedly a land reserved for common purposes under the Act and its title still continues with the owners. Thus, the judgments cited are not even remotely parimateria with the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.
13. In view of the observation made above, the appeal is dismissed with costs.