CWP No.8027 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.8027 of 2005 Date of Decision: 14.9.2010 Ashwani Kumar and another .....Petitioners Vs. Director, Land Records, Punjab, Jalandhar and others .....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Harsh Bunger, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. C.S.Brar,DAG, Punjab, for respondents no.1 to 4. Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate for legal representatives of respondent no 7. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing orders dated 8.10.1999, 28.2.2000, 31.5.2001 and 8.2.2005, passed by the Consolidation Officer, Hoshiarpur, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jalandhar, the Assistant Director, Consolidation, Punjab,Jalandhar and the Director,Land Records, Punjab, Jalandhar. The petitioners are the successors of Prem Chand, whereas contesting respondents no.5 to 12 and the legal representatives of contesting respondents are the successors of Balak Ram. Counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the jamabandi for the year 1968-69, land comprised in CWP No.8027 of 2005 2 Khewat No.78, Khatauni No.265, Khasra no.790/511 ( 75 kanals 17 marlas) was recorded as the ownership of the Gram Panchayat. Prem Chand, Sant Ram, Balak Ram and others were recorded as `Gair Marusi'. Prem Chand and Balak Ram held equal shares to the extent of half share. Vide mutation no.793, 2 kanals was sold, by the Gram Panchayat, to the provincial Government. Vide mutation no.816, 70 kanals 15 marlas was transferred to the Government. As a consequence, 3 kanals 2 marlas of land was left in Khasra No.790/511. During consolidation proceedings, Khasra No.790/511 was assigned Khasra Nos.652, 653 and 654. The area of Khasra No.654 was 12 marlas owned in equal shares by Prem Chand and Balak Ram, as recorded in the jamabandi for the year 1983-84. A large number of petitions were filed to rectify errors in consolidation proceedings. Vide order dated 24.10.1994, Prem Chand ( Predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners) was allotted 3 marlas and Balak Ram (Predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents) was allotted 9 marlas in Khasra No.654, whereas they should have been allotted 6 marlas each. Balak Ram filed a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation)Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') challenging the order dated 24.10.1994. Balak Ram also impugned another order dated 3.1.1995, passed by the Consolidation Officer. Both the petitions were allowed on 2.11.1995 by the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, by remanding the cases to the Consolidation Officer. Upon a reconsideration of the matter, the Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 8.10.1999, withdrew 3 marlas from Prem Chand and allotted the entire 12 marlas to Balak Ram. The petitioners impugned this order before the CWP No.8027 of 2005 3 Settlement Officer, who dismissed the appeal on 28.2.2000. The petitioners thereafter filed another appeal before the Assistant Director, Consolidation, which was dismissed on 31.5.2001. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioners filed a petition under Section 42 of the Act, which was dismissed by the Director, Land Records, Punjab on 8.2.2005 by passing a non- speaking, perverse and arbitrary order. Counsel for the petitioners further submits that as the old Khasra no.790//511/2 discloses that Balak Ram was owner to the extent of half share, the Consolidation Authorities were bound to have allotted 6 marlas to the petitioners in the new Khasra No.654. It is further argued that as the petitioners have been deprived of their land, the impugned orders should be set aside and consolidation authorities should be directed to reconsider the matter afresh after careful perusal of the revenue record prior to and prepared during consolidation proceedings. Counsel for the private respondents, on the other hand, submits that the impugned orders do not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or of law, as would require interference. The consolidation authorities have recorded concurrent findings of fact against a plea raised by the petitioners and in the absence of any error of law, the writ petition should be dismissed. It is further submitted that according to the jamabandi for the year 1973-74, Balak Ram was owner of 15 marlas of land. Balak Ram's ownership is reflected in the Khatauni Istemal and as Khasra No.790/511 was assigned Khasra No.654, the land was rightly allotted to Balak Ram. It is submitted that the petitioners are unnecessarily raising a dispute and therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders and find no reason to hold in favour of the petitioners. The CWP No.8027 of 2005 4 petitioners grievance has been thoroughly examined by the Consolidation Officer, the Settlement Officer, the Assistant Director and the Director Land Records and negatived. The Consolidation Officer has recorded a clear finding that the petitioners were wrongly recorded as `Gair Marusi' in Khasra No.654, as Balak Ram alone should have been shown as `Gair Marusi'. The jamabandi for the year 1973-74 clearly records Balak Ram as `Gair Marusi' in Khasra no.790/511 measuring 0-15 marlas. This entry has been recorded in the Khatauni Paimaish and the Naksha Haqdarwar, but on account of an error Prem Chand was shown to be a co-sharer in Khasra No.654(0-12 marlas). In view of the findings of fact recorded by consolidation authorities and the absence of any error of jurisdiction or of law, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. 14.9.2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE