C.W.P. No.12623 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.12623 of 1992 Date of Decision : 21.04.2011 Satwant Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI -.- Present: Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Chandumajra, D.A.G., Punjab. *** AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 14.08.1992 (Annexure P-5) and the order dated 22.06.1983 (Annexure P-6). The brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner and a few other right-holders suffered shortage in their respective holdings due to some mistake or error in the Qaimi of the boundaries of the villages Sunainheri and Ramgarh, Tehsil and District Patiala during repartition. The petitioner moved an application before the C.W.P. No.12623 of 1992 -2- Director, Consolidation of Holdings under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 and prayed therein that Qaimi of the boundaries be got refixed and the shortage which he had suffered be made good. The petition was accepted by the Director and the case was remanded to the Consolidation Officer for examination. Similar application moved by some other persons was also merged with the application of the present petitioner. The Consolidation Officer after examining the record and after taking the report from the Assistant Consolidation Officer directed that the deficiency of the petitioner be made good from out of the Bachat Khata of Mushtarka Malkan to the extent of his share. The Gram Panchayat filed a writ petition bearing C.W.P. No.8676 of 1991 challenging the order of the Consolidation Officer which was dismissed by this Court. Thereafter the State of Punjab issued the instructions (Annexures P-5 and P-6), the relevant portions of which are as under:- “Annexure P-5:- The opinion of the Legal Remembrancer Punjab, which he has given vide letter No.:2010/594/83 dated 22.06.1983 to this Department according to which the Consolidation Department has no right or authority to distribute Shamilat lands under Section 42 of the aforesaid Act and whatever orders the Consolidation Department has passed in respect of the Distribution of the C.W.P. No.12623 of 1992 -3- Shamilat lands can be undone and the property can be dealt with in the same manner as if no such order has been passed.” “Annexure P-6:- In the instant case, under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings acting, as State Government has no jurisdiction to review his previous order passed u/s 42 of the said Act.” It is argued that on the basis of these instructions the Gram Panchayat is seeking to dispossess the petitioner forcibly. It has to be noticed that despite service none appeared for the Gram Panchayat at the motion stage and it was proceeded against ex- parte. Thus there is no rebuttal to the factual assertions made in the writ petition and thus have to be taken as correct. Once that is so it is held that the petitioner had suffered a shortfall of land during repartition then a direction to make up that shortfall cannot be considered to be illegal, more so in view of the history of the litigation which has been extracted above. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the Gram Panchayat is restrained from taking forcible possession of the land in dispute from the petitioner. Once it is held by the Director on the C.W.P. No.12623 of 1992 -4- basis of the record that the shortfall had actually been suffered by the petitioner and the land was transferred to him to make up that deficiency then the instructions Annexures P-5 and P-6 would not come into the way of the petitioner. ( AJAY TEWARI ) April 21, 2011 JUDGE ashish