IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 2367 of 1986 DATE OF DECISION : 28.07.2010 Kura Ram and others .... PETITIONERS Versus The Director of Consolidation, Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Ms. Anjali Khosla, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Amarjit Markan, Advocate, for respondent No.4. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J In the present writ petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged two orders, passed by the consolidation authorities, i.e. the order dated 26.10.1983 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation Holdings, Punjab, whereby a petition filed by respondent No.4 Nihal Singh under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), for making good the deficiency of 1 Kanal 16 Marlas of land in his `Kurra' from the `Bachat area' of the village, was allowed; and the order dated 14.3.1986 (Annexure P-5), passed by the Director, Consolidation Holdings, Punjab, CWP No. 2367 of 1986 -2- whereby the aforesaid order was upheld on the ground that the petitioners could not produce any revenue record showing that they were in possession of khasra No. 577/1. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent No.4 Nihal Singh moved a petition under Section 42 of the Act for making good the deficiency of his land, alleging therein that vide order dated 26.10.1982 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation Holdings, Punjab, certain changes were made in his `Kurra' and due to those changes, deficiency of 1 Kanal 16 Marlas of land was created in his `Kurra'. Therefore, a prayer was made by respondent No.4 to make good that deficiency from the `Bachat area' of the village. Vide order dated 26.10.1983 (Annexure P-2), the said petition was disposed of by the Additional Director, Consolidation Holdings, Punjab, giving direction to the Consolidation Officer to look into the matter and make good the deficiency in the `Kurra' of respondent No.4, by allotting him the land from the `Bachat area' of the village, after hearing all the concerned parties. In pursuance of the above said order, after hearing respondent No.4 and Pawan Kumar son of Mangal Mal, Nachhatar Singh Panch and Dharam Pal Panch, the Consolidation Officer, Ropar, passed the order dated 9.11.1984 (Annexure R-1), whereby the deficiency in the `Kurra' of respondent No.4 was ordered to be made good from Khasra No. 284/4/1 (0- 5), 284/4/2 (0-4), 576 (0-3), 577/1 (0-7), 728/1 (0-8) and 553 (0-5) of Mushtarka Malkan. CWP No. 2367 of 1986 -3- On 23.8.1985, when the Consolidation Officer went to execute the said order, it was found that petitioner No.1 Kura Singh was in possession of Khasra No. 576 to the extent of 0-3 Marlas and Khasra No. 577/1 to the extent of 0-5 Marlas, and he refused to surrender possession of this land. Immediately thereafter, the present writ petition was filed. It is the case of petitioner No.1 that vide resolution No. 59 dated 12.7.1951, khasra No. 577/1 (0-11) was allotted to his father Baru Ram and out of the said land, certain land was transferred in favour of petitioners No.2 to 4. It is further alleged that petitioner No.1 is in possession of khasra Nos. 576 (0-3) and 577/1 (0-5). It is further case of the petitioners that the consolidation authorities, while passing the impugned orders, did not issue any notice to them, though they were in actual possession of the land and as such, they were the interested persons. Therefore, without hearing the petitioners, the land which was duly allotted to them, could not be allotted to another person, while making good deficiency of land in his `Kurra'. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned orders and the other documents. From the documents, annexed with this petition, it is apparent that the dispute in this case pertains to only 8 Marlas of land i.e., Khasra Nos. 576 (0-3) and 577/1 (0-5). As far as making good of deficiency of land in the `Kurra' of respondent No.4 to the extent of 1 Kanal 16 Marlas of land from the `Bachat area' of the village, as has been ordered by the Additional CWP No. 2367 of 1986 -4- Director, Consolidation Holdings, Punjab, vide order dated 26.10.1983 (Annexure P-2), is concerned, the petitioners cannot raise any grouse. Their only grouse is that while making good the deficiency of land in the `Kurra' of respondent No.4, the land which is in their possession and which was allotted to their forefathers cannot be given to respondent No.4. The only grouse of the petitioners is qua the order dated 9.11.1984 (Annexure R-1) to the extent of 3 Marlas of land from khasra No. 576 and 5 Marlas of land from khasra No. 577/1, which was given to respondent No.4, while making good the deficiency of land in his `Kurra', without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, though they were the interested persons. Undisputedly, at the time of the implementation of the aforesaid order, it was found by the Kanungo, as reflected from his report dated 23.8.1985 (Annexure P-3), that petitioner No.1 Kura Ram was in possession of Khasra Nos. 576 (0-3) and 577/1 (0-5). Thus, I am of the opinion that before petitioner No.1 is dispossessed from the aforesaid area, in implementation of the order dated 26.10.1983 (Annexure P-2), he has to be provided an opportunity of hearing. It is always open for a person in possession of land to contend that his possession on the said area is legal and valid and he has title on the said portion of the land. As far as respondent No.4 is concerned, he is entitled for making good the deficiency of land in his `Kurra' as per the order dated 26.10.1983 (Annexure P-2) only from the `Bachat area' of the village and not from the land of other persons. Therefore, the Consolidation Officer, while passing the order dated 9.11.1984 (Annexure R-1), should CWP No. 2367 of 1986 -5- have heard the persons, who were in possession of Khasra Nos. 576 (0-3) and 577/1 (0-5). Thus, in my view, the Consolidation Officer has committed grave illegality while not providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, while allotting land to respondent No.4 from these two khasra numbers, which were in possession of petitioner No.1. To that extent, the order dated 9.11.1984 (Annexure R-1), passed by the Consolidation Officer, Ropar, is set aside and the matter is remanded to him to take a decision with regard to 8 Kanals of land i.e. Khasra Nos. 576 (0-3) and 577/1 (0-5), after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. In case, the petitioners prove their legal title over this land, the Consolidation Officer may make good the deficiency of land in the `Kurra' of respondent No.4 from the other `Bachat area' of the village, in accordance with law. In case, the petitioners fail to prove their legal possession/title over the said 8 Malras of land, then the Consolidation Officer may keep his order dated 9.11.1984 (Annexure R-1) intact. Petition is disposed of, accordingly. July 28, 2010 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE