In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... C.W.P. No.9827 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:7.7.2009 Shavinder Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Vikas Mehsempuri, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 12.9.2007 (Annexure-P.7) passed by the Director, Land Records, Punjab, Jalandhar, exercising the powers of State Government under the East Punjab (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (`Consolidation Act' - for short), whereby it has been held that the State Government had no power to re-partition the `Shamilat Deh' land. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that mutation (Annexure-P.1) was wrongly sanctioned on 25.12.1956 in favour of the Gram Panchayat, Chungara. The land was `Shamilat Pati Hasab Hisam Jaddi' and in the column of cultivation, it is recorded as under the possession of owners. It is further contended that in terms of Consolidation Scheme (Annexure-P.2) which was sanctioned in pursuance of notification dated 21.11.1958 an area of 783-7 Bighas Khewat has wrongly been mentioned as `Shamilat Deh' which has been transferred in the name of Gram Panchayat. It has been recorded that the said area would be kept C.W.P. No.9827 of 2009 [2] reserved for common purposes and if the area for common purposes was of less value then the remaining area would be given to the Gram Panchayat as per its entitlement. Besides, if the area for common purposes would be of less value than the previous area of Gram Panchayat, deficiency would be made good from all the proprietors according to their `Hasab Rasad' standard area and a separate Khewat of the area so recovered would be settled. Therefore, it is submitted that the Director, Land Records, Punjab failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by declining to re-partition the `Shamilat Deh' land. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the primary grievance of the petitioner is against the order of the Director, Land Records, exercising the powers of the State Government under Section 42-A of the Consolidation Act whereby the Director has held that in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Civil Appeal No.2066 of 1996 titled Gram Panchayat, Nurpur v. State of Punjab, (1998) 8 SCC 672 the Director Consolidation has no authority to go into the question whether the land in dispute is Shamilat Deh or not. This question could only be decided by the authorities under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (`Regulation Act' – for short). Indeed in the said case it was held by the Supreme Court that the Additional Director Consolidation had no jurisdiction to go into the question whether land in dispute was `Shamilat Deh' and the said question could only be decided under the aforesaid Regulation Act. In Gram Panchayat Village Kot Mana v. Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, (1998) 9 SCC 269 also it was held by the Supreme Court that after enforcement of the Regulation Act, question of ownership of the land can only be decided by the Collector C.W.P. No.9827 of 2009 [3] under Section 11 thereof. It was held that the contention that the area being Bachat area was distributed amongst the right holders can be raised before the Collector. Reliance was placed on the case of Gram Panchayat Village Sidh v. Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings , Civil Appeal No.14786 of 1996 decided on 21.11.1996. In the scheme of the Regulation Act the Collector under the Regulation Act is the competent authority to determine whether the land is `Shamilat Deh' or not. The Consolidation Authority has no jurisdiction to consider the question whether the land is `Shamilat Deh' or not. Therefore, in case the petitioner has any grievance as regards the nature of land he is liable to approach the Collector under the Regulation Act. There is no error of jurisdiction in the order passed by the Director, Land Records, exercising the powers of the State Government, in holding that he has no jurisdiction to re-partition the area of the `Shamilat Deh'. In the circumstances, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. July 7, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp* NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes