Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gram Panchayat Shitabgarh vs The Director, Consolidation Of ... on 29 November, 1991
Equivalent citations: (1992)101PLR616
Author: Harjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Harjit Singh Bedi
JUDGMENT Harjit Singh Bedi, J.
1. The present petition is directed against the order of the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Annexure P-3, dated 24th May, 1988, whereby a direction has been issued that the land in dispute be mutated in favour of the proprietors in a manner detrimental to the interest of the petitioner-Gram Panchayat. As per the averments in the petition, the suit land was recorded as "Shamlat Deh Hasab Hissa Halsari" in the revenue record prior to the start of consolidation proceedings in the year 1953-54. It has been averred that the Pepsu Village Common Lands and Regulation Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Pepsu Act) was enforced with effect from March 1955, and vide section 3 thereof, it is provided that all land which is included in Shamlat Deh of any village, shall on the appointed date, vest in a Panchayat having jurisdiction over the village. Section 4 of the Pepsu Act provided that the Shamlat Deh lands vested in the Gram Panchayat were to be managed by the Panchayat for the benefit of the inhabitants of the village. It has been averred that keeping in view the principles of the Pepsu Act, the State of Punjab issued a letter for the convenience of the authorities directing them to sanction mutation in the name of the Gram Panchayat. It has been averred that in accordance with this letter, the land in question was mutated in the name of the Panchayat on 13th June, 1957. The challenge had been made by the private respondent to the sanction of this mutation before the Director of Consolidation of Holdings on the ground that there was, in fact, no order of the Punjab Government directing that the mutation be sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat and, as already mentioned above, this petition has been allowed by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings vide Annexure P-3.
2. Counsel for the petitioner-Panchayat has raised before me three arguments in favour of the Gram Panchayat. He has urged that the Director Consolidation had no authority to direct the change of mutation as that was the sole function of the authorities under the revenue law. He has also asserted that as the question of title was involved between the parties, the matter should have been decided by taking recourse to Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands and Regulation Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the 'Regulation Act'). He has also asserted that the Director of Consolidation should not have, in any case, interferred with the matter after the lapse of over 30 years.
3. Controverting the pleas raised by the petitioner, counsel for the respondents has asserted that the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, has, in fact, not changed the entries with regard to the mutation, but he has only sought to rectify the mistake, which had been committed by the consolidation authorities, at the time of the consolidation proceedings. He has also urged that in any case, there was no Government letter directing that the mutations be sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat, as averred by the petitioner. Annexure P-2 appended with the petition and relied on by the petitioner only says that till the promulgation of a uniform law in place of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953 and the Pepsu Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1954, is enacted, the sanction of mutations against the interest of the proprietors be kept in abeyance.
4. After hearing counsel for the parties, I find that this petition has no merit and deserves to be dismissed.
5. It appears to me that vide Annexure P-3, the impugned order, the Director of Consolidation has not changed the mutation, but has only sought to undo a mistake that has crept in at the time of consolidation proceedings. This has been repeatedly asserted in the course of reply filed by the respondents and has not been controverted by the petitioner by filing a replication. I also find from a reading of Annexure P-3 that the sanction of mutation on 13th June, 1956 was based on a misconception of some supposed directive that had been issued by the Government with regard to sanction of mutation in favour of the Gram Panchayat. As already mentioned above and is also clear from the impugned order, there appears to have been no such directive and Annexure P-2 itself does not support the case of the petitioner.
6. The argument that the Director Consolidation should not have interfered with the matter after almost 30 years, is also misplaced. The Director Consolidation undertook to undo a mistake and that matter was entirely within his jurisdiction. The Director can under Section 42 of the East Punjab, Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, interfere with a matter such as the present one, at any time as held by this Court in Jagtar Singh v. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, 1984 R.L.R. 209.
7. For the reasons recorded above, the present petition is dismissed but with no order as to costs.