IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1130 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 07.07.2011 Phuman Singh …..Appellant versus Director, Land Records and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.Munish Jolly, Advocate for the appellant Mr.Gurcharan Singh, Advocate for the Caveator Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) C.M. No.3153 of 2011 In view of reasons mentioned in this application, which is accompanied by an affidavit, it is allowed and 221 days delay in filing the appeal stands condoned. LPA No.1130 of 2011 This order will dispose of two Letter Patent Appeals bearing Nos.1130 and 1131 of 2011, involving similar question of law and facts. For facility of reference, facts are being mentioned from LPA No.1130 of 2011. This appeal has been filed against judgment dated 29.7.2010, vide which, CWP No.6803 of 2008 was dismissed as withdrawn subject to certain conditions as per prayer made by counsel for the parties at the time of the arguments. Further challenge has been made to an order dated LPA No.1130 of 2011 16.3.2011, vide which, an application of the appellant to recall an order, earlier passed, was dismissed. When an application for review was made, it was stated before the learned Single Judge that concession as recorded in order dated 29.7.2010 was not given by the appellant. That argument was rejected. Otherwise also, such a statement is not believable, as on 29.7.2010, as per prayer made, writ petition was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn and the order was dictated in Court in presence of counsel for the parties. If something was recorded not as per the statement made, counsel was duty bound to object to the same then and there. It appears that the subsequent application was moved after deliberations, simply with a view to wriggle out of the statement earlier made. Otherwise also, it is apparent from the record that the dispute is pending between the appellant and the respondent-Gram Panchayat regarding land which was reserved for common purposes at the time of consolidation proceedings. The case has a long and chequered history. The matter went upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court and remanded with a direction that let the Director Consolidation look into the prayer made by the appellant afresh. That officer again passed an order directing partition of the land, which was reserved for Common purposes in the village at the time of consolidation proceedings. Matter was sent to the Consolidation Officer for determination of the shares of the land owners, who refused to do so in view of ratio of a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gram Panchayat Naarpur v. State of Punjab 1997 (3) RCR 47, wherein it has been opined that the question of title can only be decided by the Collector appointed under the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and not by the director under the 2 LPA No.1130 of 2011 provisions of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (in short, the Act). It is contention of counsel for the appellant that at the time of consolidation proceedings, excess land was reserved for Charand in the village. By making reference to the schedule annexed to the Act he tried to say that as per quantum of land in the revenue estate of village Ugrupur, area to the extent of four acres only could have been reserved for Charand, whereas in the village Scheme, area was reserved to the extent of 319 kanal and 19 marla, which he says is contrary to the provisions of the Act. While raising that argument counsel for the appellant has failed to appreciate that the standard value of the area is only 43 kanal and 5 marla i.e. about 5 ½ acres. If that is so, the area is only little bit more than the area as shown in the scheduled annexed to the consolidation Act. Furthermore, in view of withdrawal of the writ petition, no interference can be made at this stage. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 07.07.2011 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge 3