Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagbir Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 17 July, 2013
Bench: Jasbir Singh, G.S. Sandhawalia
CWP No. 11548 of 2012 (O & M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
*****
CWP No. 11548 of 2012 (O & M)
Date of decision : 17.7.2013
Jagbir Singh and others ........Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ......Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh
Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia
Present:- Mr. S.S. Kharab, Advocate, for the petitioners
Mr. D. Khanna, Addl. AG, Haryana
Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for respondents No. 12 to 59
---
Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral)
The petitioners are residents of village Bilaspur, Tehsil Samalkha, District Panipat. It is their grievance that in their village, qua the land, which is under the 'river action', record has not been prepared, to affect consolidation, by the Revenue authorities, despite directions issued by this Court in CWP No. 8979 of 2009 titled as 'Charan Singh and others v. State of Haryana and another' decided on 17.8.2011 and CWP No. 2120 of 2007 titled as 'Ramesh and others v. State of Haryana and others' decided on 1.3.2012.
It is necessary to mention here that in Charan Singh's case (supra), a bunch of writ petitions were disposed of and one of those writs i.e. CWP No. 8204 of 1997 titled as 'Sehdev and others v. State of Haryana and others' was with regard to above controversy in this village. In Kumar Ashwani 2013.08.01 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 11548 of 2012 (O & M) -2- Ramesh and others' case (supra) similar dispute was with regard to an adjoining village in District Panipat.
The petitioners in this writ petition have come to this Court with the following prayer :-
"i) To issue a writ of certiorari for quashing the consolidation process of Village Bilaspur, Tehsil Samalkha, District Panipat in view of the order dated 17.8.2011 (Annexure P-2) passed by this Hon'ble High Court in CWP No. 8204 of 1997 titled as "Sehdev and others v. State of Haryana and others" and order dated 1.3.2012 (Annexure P-4) passed by this Hon'ble High Court in CWP No. 2120 of 2007 titled as "Ramesh and others v. State of Haryana and others", in which the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Hon'ble High Court has directed the State Government to pass an order for withdrawal of Consolidation Scheme/Notification and further directed to issue necessary Notification and then prepare the records of rights within 2 years and then proceed with the consolidation process;
ii) to issue a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from proceeding further with the consolidation process in compliance of the order dated 1.3.2012 (Annexure P-4) passed by this Hon'ble High Court;
iii) to issue any other appropriate writ, order or directions which this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper under the peculiar circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioners;"
It is vehemently contended that without complying with directions given by this Court in the above said two judgments, an attempt has been made to say that in a part of petitioners' village, consolidation proceedings stood concluded and the authorities are pressing for exchange Kumar Ashwani 2013.08.01 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 11548 of 2012 (O & M) -3- of land allotted to various right holders. In Charan Singh's case (supra), residents of many villages from the States of Haryana and Uttar Pradesh came to this Court, raising a dispute that before conducting consolidation of proceedings in a village, the Revenue authorities shall prepare record qua the land under river action.
By noting that dispute is on account of non-preparation of record of rights by the Revenue authorities, as per the provisions of Section 32 and 33 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1987, the State of Haryana through its Advocate General gave an undertaking to update the record in these villages. It was so said by placing on record an affidavit of the Deputy Commissioner, Panipat, Palwal and the Commissioner of the Division concerned.
Relevant portion of the order passed in Charan Singh's case (supra) reads thus :-
"5. Shri Hooda, learned Advocate General, Haryana in deference thereto has placed on record the affidavits of the Deputy Commissioners of Panipat and Palwal districts along with the similar worded notifications issued by the Commissioners of the competent jurisdiction, the contents whereof read as follows :-
"Now, therefore, I, T.K. Sharma, IAS, Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon in exercise of powers conferred upon me under Section 32 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, do hereby order that following action be taken to prepare the record of rights pertaining to the land of village Uttasani (UP State) to be included in the revenue estate of villages Maholi (Hadbast No. 103) of Hodal Tehsil Palwal Kumar Ashwani district (Haryana State) :-2013.08.01 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 11548 of 2012 (O & M) -4-
1. That the Settlement Officer shall get the measurement of above mentioned land done as per rules and regulations.
2. That after proper measurement, Shajra Plan shall be got prepared.
3. That the record of rights of proprietors so prepared shall be made available to the public and the claims and objections, if any, shall be invited as per provisions of law.
4. That after hearing claims and objections, the process to make the final revenue record of rights will be started as per provisions of Section 32 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887."
No exception was made so far as any village is concerned. Consolidated directions were issued for all the villages qua which writ petitions were filed and disposed of vide the order mentioned above. Specific directions were issued to the authorities to affect measurement of the land as per rules and prepare shajra plan after measurement. Thereafter, copies of the records of rights were to be made available to the public to invite objections and after deciding those objections, final record of rights was to be prepared. Directions were to be complied within 2 years. When it was not done, some right holders of the adjoining villages came to this Court by filing a bunch of writ petitions, which were disposed of by passing a judgment in Ramesh and other's case (supra) on 1.3.2012.
The directions given by this Court in Charan Singh's case (supra) were noted and the 'authorities were directed to comply with above said directions' and it was further directed that necessary Kumar Ashwani 2013.08.01 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 11548 of 2012 (O & M) -5- notification be issued within 2 months and fresh record of rights be prepared within 2 years thereafter.
It is grievance of the petitioners that the above exercise has not been undertaken by the respondent-authorities. To deny right of the petitioners, it is stated that initially, consolidation proceedings were started in the village in the year 1962-63. Due to certain reasons, the proceedings could not be materialized and the consolidation again started in the year 2006 and was completed in May 2011, i.e. before passing of an order by this Court in the above said two writ petitions.
It is also stated that above fact was brought to the notice of the Court when a bunch of writ petitions were heard in Charan Singh's case (supra).
Be that as it may, it is expected that the learned Judges might have passed the above said orders by taking note of all the documents on record. Order in Charan Singh's case (supra) was passed on a concession given. There is nothing on record to show that it was argued before the Court at that time that as the consolidation proceedings have already become final, no fresh proceedings shall be started.
It is a fact that the abovesaid consolidation proceedings were materialised only with regard to land which was not subject matter of river action. Qua the said land, no order was passed.
If that is so, in fact it is not a complete exercise in the process of consolidation. Directions issued by this Court in two decisions, referred to above, are very categoric and clear, authorities were directed to prepare revenue record afresh after measurement of the spot and completing other Kumar Ashwani 2013.08.01 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 11548 of 2012 (O & M) -6- formalities.
In the circumstances, we direct the State of Haryana to comply with the directions issued by this Court in the above said two orders. If notification has not been issued, it be issued within one month from today and proceedings be completed in this village within the stipulated period as given by this Court in Ramesh and others' case (supra) decided on 1.3.2012.
If any extension is needed, the State may move an application on expiry of the time already granted. If exercise is not taken, then Principal Secretary, Revenue shall be held responsible for non-compliance of the order passed by this Court.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. Interim directions issued in Ramesh Singh's case (supra) shall continue.
Copy of order passed, be supplied to Mr. D. Khanna, Addl. AG, Haryana for necessary compliance.
(Jasbir Singh) Judge (G.S. Sandhawalia) Judge 17.7.2013 Ashwani Kumar Ashwani 2013.08.01 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document