CWP No.6560 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6560 of 1988 Date of decision:11.03.2011 Ram Lal (deceased) through his LRs and others ..... Petitioners Versus The Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Chandigarh and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr.B.S.Kathuria, Advocate for the petitioners. ***** RAJIVE BHALLA, J.(ORAL) The petitioner (since deceased) represented through his legal representatives prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 05.02.1988, passed by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, directing consolidation authorities to record an entry “Tahit Malkan” in the cultivation column of Khewat No.670, Khata No.1257 & 1258 (as per jamabandi of 1982-83). Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Director Consolidation had no jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)after completion of consolidation proceedings and preparation of the revenue record, and pass an order that the words “Tahit Malkan” (under the owner) be recorded. It is further argued that the finding recorded by the Director Consolidation is contrary to the record as CWP No.6560 of 1988 -2- neither the jamabandi preceding consolidation, nor any document prepared during consolidation record the words “Tahit Malkan”. It is further submitted that as the land in dispute was allotted to the petitioner vide allotment letter (Sanad) dated 22.06.1960 as a displaced person from Pakistan, there is no question of the petitioner being in possession under the Central Government. It is prayed that in view of these errors, the order passed by the Director Consolidation should be set aside. Despite service, no-one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order. The Director Consolidation has directed that the words “Tahit Malkan” be recorded below the entry “Central Government, Kashat, Ramlal s/o Nand Lal allottee” as such an entry appears in the revenue record prior to consolidation. The impugned order however does not refer to any revenue document that may contain such an entry. Consolidation is carried out on the basis of the last jamabandi preceding the initiation of consolidation proceedings. The first document prepared during consolidation is the Khatauni Ishtemal, followed by the naksha haqdarwar, the register karwai and thereafter the Khatauni Paimaish. The Director Consolidation has not referred to any of these documents or the jamabandi preceding initiation of consolidation proceedings before passing the impugned order. CWP No.6560 of 1988 -3- A perusal of the jamabandi for the year 1950-51 reveals that the petitioner was in possession of land belonging to the Central Government. The land was allotted to the petitioner by a sanad dated 22.06.1960. The petitioner is the owner of the land in dispute. The words “Tahit Malkan” i.e. under the owner therefore, cannot be recorded. The finding that there is an error in revenue record prepared during consolidation is factually incorrect as it disregards the allotment made to the petitioner on 22.06.1960. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside in so far as it directs the recording of an entry of “Tahit Malkan” in the revenue record. No order as to costs. 11.03.2011 [ RAJIVE BHALLA ] shamsher JUDGE