IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 17281 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: 18.07.2011 Miya Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. Mr. J.S. Cooner, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Costs paid. Gaje Singh son of Raghbir singh had filed an application under Section 42 of the East Punjab Consolidation (Prevention of Consolidation and Fragmentation Act) (hereinafter referred to 'Act') claiming himself to be Dolidar in Khasra No. 1719 measuring 8 bighas 5 biswas. He claimed that they were recorded as gairmarusi since 1904-09 and 1942-44. He had sought correction of the consolidation scheme on the ground that the entry recorded the applicant as gairmarusi was not recorded in the consolidation scheme. Director after noticing the revenue record has amended the scheme accordingly on the ground that this appears to be on a mistake and the applicant were not recorded as gairmarusi. Civil Writ Petition No. 17281 of 2008 -2- He, accordingly, accepted the appeal and had recorded the applicant as gairmarusi. The petitioner has challenged this order on the ground that he was doli of the owner. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon jamabandi entries for the year 1943-44 where Raghbir Singh is recorded as owner but predecessor of the petitioner Tori son of Hardawari etc. were recorded as dolidar through Sh. Raghbir Singh. Reference is then made to Annexure P-2, which is a jamabandi for the year 1984-85 where same position is reflected. On this basis, counsel contends that the Director, Consolidation has failed to notice the facts and also the legal position that the owner, who had given this land on doli to the petitioner, could not claim back the title nor could they claim to be gairmarusi. Counsel further contends that the Director has decided the question of title, which he could not competently do while exercising jurisdiction under Section 42 of the Act. The primary grievance of the petitioner, however, remains that the Director has passed this order ignoring this legal and factual position. The Director ought to have considered the revenue entry and that fact whether the doli in favour of the petitioner could be interfered in this manner. In the revenue entry for the year 1944-45, the petitioner is reflected as dolidar. There may be some weight in the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner that doli could not be cancelled in this manner unless civil court interfere to decide the issue. Since all these relevant matters have escaped consideration of the Director, Consolidation, it would be appropriate Civil Writ Petition No. 17281 of 2008 -3- to remand the matter back to the Director for deciding afresh after taking into consideration all the relevant documents. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak on 23.08.2011 as the power of Director, Consolidation has now been delegated to the Commissioner, Rohtak. July 18, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) rts JUDGE