Ir 68 40 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP N03063 of 1985 DATE OF DECISION OCTOBER2010 Mohinder Singhand others 1 PETITIONERS Versus 0 TheAddl Director Consolidation 0 ofHoldingsPunjab I and others C5 leesRESPONDENTS CORAM HONBLE MRJUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Prescnt MrJai Advocate lr for the Mr Lalit SharmaAdvocate I for No c4 SATISH KUMAR MITTAL J m Z The and No to 8 are rightholdersof QW villageBurj Sema District Bathinda In the said villageconsolidation took place111the year 1960underthe East PunjabHoldings Consolidation and Preventionof Act 1948 referrcdto as the Actl The dralt Schemeofconsolidationwas objections invitedand it was confirmedThereafterthe lSsue of of land in accordance with the Schemeof Consolidation among the right holdcrswas consideredunder Section 21611 of the Act Under subesection 621of Section 21 of the Act any person aggrieved by the was entitled to file objections within fIfteen daysof the publication before thc Consolidation Officer The petitionersthrough Bachan Singh father of l POOJA 2015.04.18 12: 02 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 69 r CWP N03063 of 1985 2 N032 lo 34 filed against the beforethe Consolidation Offlceralleging thatNehri landwas allottedto them instead of Banjarland Secondly the ld comprising in Khasra No60 of Chand Singhfather No 5 to 8 hadbeengivento them which was of lesservalue and the land of highervalue was takenaway 8om them lt 1 was also allegedthat Chand Singhwas allottedland of highervalue in C excess The ConsolidationOfficer vide order dated 273 959 0 0 those andmadechanges in the order I Feeling against the aforesaidorder Chand Singh C5 father of No to 8 filed an appealbefore the Settlement Officer underSection2101of the Act The said appeal was dismissedby the SettlementOfficer Consolidation vide his order dated 2831 959 ThereafterChandSinghfurther thoseordersbyfllingthe appeal I 08 underSection 2149ofthe Act beforethe AssistantDirector Consolidation to whom thepower of the StateGovernmentwas The Assistant 7 Director Consolidationvidehis order dated271 1 1960partlyaccepted the said appealIn orderto avoid bifurcationof C gradeland Tak of Chand SinghBachan Singhwas givenKilla Nos 12114121172416 241724114 24115 2411624117and a partof Killa N024124 the were inadein the Scheme As a result of the saidamendmentln the watercourse was placedmostlyon one side of the Tak of ChandSingh Thesaidorder was accepted byboth theparties as none ofthem furthcr thesaid order byfilinga petition underSection42 ofthe Act According to the made bythe aforesaid order the parties took posseson and made in their respective shares In the 7 l POOJA 2015.04.18 12: 02 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 70 4 CWP No063 of 1985 meanwhileChandSinghand Bachan Singhexpired After 25 years of the order of the Assistant Director Consolidationthe sons ofChand Singh No to 8 filed a petitionunder Section42 ofthe Act ofthe land It was allegedthat while allottingBloclvise area in the the consolidation hadacted against theconsolidation schemeIt was C furtheralleged that theyhadbeen allottedlessland of the lesservalueand 0 C allottedmore land of thehighervaluewhich hasresultedinto allotmentof I 0 lessland to them It was furtherallegedthatthe watercourse was passing through the middleof their Tak which has bifurcatedtheir Tak lnto two the ofthe Iandwas illegalas it was donebythe ConsolidationOftlcertotallyin violationofthe ConsolidationScheme X The the said petitionon the groundof c6 limitationas well as on meritsThe AdditionalDirector Consolidationvide iinpugnedorder dated 2861985 has allowed the said petitionwhile 7 that for the orderunderSection of theAcl no iimitationis It was held that Noto8 were not allottedland in Block C a greatloss was caused to them After the petitionhe remandedthe matter to the ConsolidationOfficer with the directionto allot the land to the parties Blocloewise to their entitlerilentin accordancewith theprovisions of theSchemeIn nutshellbythe order the madeby the ConsolidationOfficer which becamefinal up to the Assistant Director Consolidation was set aside and the mater was remanded to the ConsolidationOfficer to makefreshpartitionofthe holdings Feelingaggrievedagainstthe aforesaidorder the petitioners 1 l POOJA 2015.04.18 12: 02 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 71 r l C W P No 5063 of 1985 4 have the samein the instantpetitionWhile the Wrlt petitionon October 18 1985 the of the order was stayed I have heard thelearnedcounselfor the and learned counsefor No andgonethrough the order 1 Learned counsel for the argued thatthe petition filed r by No to 8 underSection42 of the Act beforethe Additional 0 0 Director Consolidation the madein the year 1960 I C5 was time barred and after expiryof lnore than 25 years the AdditionalDirector Consolidationshouldnot haveset aside the order passedby the ConsolidationOfcer He 81rtherarguedthat the 2 C ConsolidationOfflcer afler inviting to the I orderedthe underSection2161of the Act in accordancewith c6 the Scheme of Consolidation The said order becameflnal betweenthe partieswith some modiflcation made by the Assistant Director m2 Z Consolidation Thereafternone of the parties remained against Om the and the fInal order passedby the Assistant Director Learned counsel arguedthat when the becamefinal the Additional Director Consolidationshould not have entertainedthe petitlonunder Section42 ofthe Act against the at a belatedstage as thepetitionfiled by No to 8 was hit byRule 18 ofthe East PunjabHoldingsConsolidationce Preventionof Rules 1949 referredto as he Rules Thereforethe order is not sustainablein theeyesof law and thesame is liable to be quashed After the argumentsof the leamed counsel for the partiesandthe variousorderspassedbythe consolidation authorities whicll POOJA 2015.04.18 12: 02 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 72 CWP N05063 0f1985 5 havebeen annexedwith this petitionI am of the opinion that the impugned orderpassedby the Additional Director Consolidationis Iiable to be in the presentcase a schemeof consolidationwas framedand Objections were invitedand thereaftertheschemeof consolidationwas confirmedunder Section20 ofthe Act ARer framing the m ConsolidationSchemeof the villagethe ConsolidationOfficer the of the land in the manner set out ln the said schemeThe 0 C were invited The father of some of the Oled 0 to the said scheme His were and the I was ordered While making the ofthe holdings every partyincluding the No to 8 were alsoheard Thereafterfeeling againstthe said order the of et private flled an appeal under Section2139of the Act His c6 appeal was di smissed Still feeling againstthe said order he secondappealunderSection21 IJof the Act beforethe State am Z Govemment The AssistantDirector Consolidation the powers CL ofthe StateGovernment dealt with the said appealpanlyallowedthe appealand some relief was granted to him order passedby the Consolidation Ofcer was modified The order of the ConsolidationOfficer nergedln the order of the Assistant Director Consolidation and the said order became final as none of the parties the said order It appearsto me that at thetime of repartition the of theprivate the superior quality of land in order to get less land of superior quality so as to protecthis land Gom beingdeclared as surplusThat is why after the repartitionhe did not lrther the said order After the final order of 1 4 POOJA 2015.04.18 12: 02 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 73 rv C WPN05063 0f1985 6 boththeparties settledinto oftheir shares and havemade in theirholdingsIn thesefacts in my the AdditionalDirector Consolidationshouldnot haveentenained thepetition filed by No to 8 underSection 42 of the Act the order of passedby the ConsolidationOf6cer which hadbecome final betweenthe partiesup to Assistant DireCtOr t r Consolidation No to 8 had not givenany valid reasons 0 thefilingof the petition underSection42 of the Act at a highly C3 belated stage ln his order the Additional Director Consolidationhas C5 I observedthatno limitationis under the Act to challenge theorderof The AdditionalDirector Consolidationis refening to the Full Benchdecisionof this Court in JagtarSinghv4ddlDirector Consolidation AIR 1984PcOH216n thepresentcase though 08 lt was in the petition filed by No to 8 under Section 42 of the Act that theywere the order of passed by 7 theConsolidationOfficerunderSection21611 ofthe Act but actuallythey had been the final order dated 27 1960 passedby the 1 Assistant Director Consolidationunder Section21 49of the Act In iny opinionthe Additional Director Consolidationhas coinmitted grave illegality while observing that the were the order of passed under Section21 ofthe Act In my view the said order passed bytheAssistantDirector Consolidationwas merged in theorderof the Consolidation Officer which became Onal between the parties Thereforeto the saidorder which was passed under the Act the party was requiredto file a petitionwithin six months as under Rule 18ofthe Rules In case it is takenthat Rule 18 ofthe 9 POOJA 2015.04.18 12: 02 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 74 1 91 CWP No3063of1985 7 Rulesis noapplicable in thepresent case andno limitationis for theorder of underSection42 of theAct even then the SupremeCourt lIl Gram Kakran v Addl Director of Consolidationand another 997 8 SCC 484 has held thatthe pty against the orderis required to move the m within a reasonabletime When there is unreasonableand C inordinate delayin invoking underSection42 ofthe Act and 0 0 the partyis unableto explainthe said delaythe Additional I DirectorConsolidationshouldnot haveentertainedthesaid and C5 I ought to have the same when duringthe saidperiodof 25yearstheparties hadsettledtheir and made 111 theiandsallottedto themas per their sharesIn my opiniononly 1 in one situation the order of can be directiy tn a5 inherentpower under Section42 of theAct where parties had neitherOled nor heardbytheConsolidationOfficer In thepresentcasenot wa Z onlythe were invited and confinnedbut the parties were also Ile heardby the Consolidationoftlcer The said order of the Consolidation OfHcerhad merged in the order of the AssistantDirector Consolidation The Additional Director Consolidationhas unsettledthe settled without anyjustificatioli and reasonablenessand hastotallyignoredthe fact that the earlier partition order was by partyby filingthe appealand the said order becameOnal Thus in my opinionthe order passedby the Additional Director Consolidation at a loelatedstagewas whollywithout illegaland and the samecannot be sustainedin theeyesoflaw the writ petition is allowed and the POOJA 2015.04.18 12: 02 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 75 r1 CWPN05063 0f1985 8 1 order dated2861985 AnnexureP49passedby the Additional Director Consolidationis with no orderas to costs 2010 SATISH KUMAR MITTALI vkg JUDGE 4D 0 0 I 0 I Il I C45 W2 r Il Vl POOJA 2015.04.18 12: 02 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document