Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parma Nand vs Director on 11 May, 2012
Bench: Rajive Bhalla, Rakesh Kumar Jain
Civil Writ Petition No.2116 of 2010 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.2116 of 2010
Date of Order: 11.05.2012
Parma Nand ...Petitioner
Versus
Director, Land Record, Punjab, Jalandhar
and others ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr. N.D.S.Mann, Addl. A.G.,Punjab
for the State.
Mr. C.L.Premy, Advocate
RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral)
After considering the matter in detail, we passed the following order on 07.03.2012:-
"We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records and are prima facie satisfied that the land owned and possessed by Harnam Singh, father of respondent no.3 was assigned khasra no.665/1 at the time of consolidation, but on account of an error, this land was allotted to one Maharaj Singh. In proceedings under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short, 'the Act') the Additional Director, Consolidation has Civil Writ Petition No.2116 of 2010 -2- refused to set aside, allotment made to Maharaj Singh but has ordered that short fall in the land of respondent no.3-Harnam Singh be made good from land belonging to the custodian. It appears that in another proceeding initiated under Section 42 of the Act, land in possession of the petitioner has been allotted to Smt. Krishna Walia, daughter of Harnam Singh to the extent of 1 kanal 19 marlas. The petitioner, claims that the land allotted to Smt. Krishna Walia is the land of Gurudwara donated by the erstwhile ruler of State of Kapurthala and therefore, cannot be allotted to Smt. Krishna Walia. We are prima facie satisfied that the cause for this dispute is the incorrect orders passed in consolidation. As a consequence we direct the Director, Land Record, Punjab, to produce the entire record and file a detailed affidavit with respect to the entitlement of Smt. Krishna Walia, daughter of Harnam Singh. Adjourn to 18.04.2012."
The Director Land Records, Punjab, Jalandhar, has filed an affidavit, admitting that the order dated 30.09.2009 (Annexure P-
15) is incorrect as the private respondents did not disclose that father of respondent no.3, namely, Harnam Singh had already availed of his remedy under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short, 'the Act') before the Additional Director Consolidation, who had vide order dated 10.10.1980 allotted khasra no.664, measuring 2 kanals and 0 Civil Writ Petition No.2116 of 2010 -3- marla to Harnam Singh, father of respondent no.3. A relevant extract from the affidavit reads as follows:-
"5. That as per Annexure P-2 to the writ petition, the father of the respondent no.3 namely Harnam Singh had already availed of the remedy to file petition under Section 42 of the of the East Punjab Holdings (consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, by stating the same facts before the then Additional Director Consolidation. The Additional Director Consolidation accepted the petition on 10.10.1980 and allotted Khasra No.664 measuring 2K-0M to Harnam Singh, the father of the respondent no.3 against Khasra No.665/1. This order dated 10.10.1980 was never brought to the notice of the Additional Director Consolidation by way of the parties. By hiding the above facts, Smt. Krishna Walia respondent no.3 again filed the case No.6/95 under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 before the Additional Director Consolidation and got another order passed in her favour from the Additional Director Consolidation on 14.11.1995 (Annexure P-7 to the writ petition) and subsequent orders, up to 30.09.2009 (Annexure P-15 to the writ petition) and again got khasra no.650 measuring 1K- 18M."
Counsel for respondent no.3 is not in a position to deny Civil Writ Petition No.2116 of 2010 -4- the averments in paragraph 5, mentioned above.
We have once again heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and are satisfied that the Director Land Records, Punjab, Jalandhar, had no jurisdiction to pass order dated 30.09.2009 (Annexure P-15) with respect to land which was already in possession of the petitioner, particularly, in view of order dated 10.10.1980 that has already been passed on the basis of an earlier petition, filed under Section 42 of the Act, by respondent No.3's father. As a consequence, respondent no.3 had no right to file a fresh petition under Section 42 of the Act. The Director Land Records was misled into passing the impugned order.
In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed and order dated 30.09.2009 (Annexure P-15) is set aside, leaving it to parties to seek their remedies, in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
(RAJIVE BHALLA)
JUDGE
May 11, 2012 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN)
nt JUDGE