CWP No.10027 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.10027 of 2008 Date of decision: 26.07.2011 Suresh ....Petitioner Versus The Director, Consolidation, Haryana, Chandigarh, and others ....Respondents CWP No.7296 of 2007 Jagdish ....Petitioner Versus The Director, Consolidation, Haryana, Chandigarh, and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Chanakya Pandit, Advocate, and Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana. Mr. R.S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No.4. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J. Since in both the petitions common/identical questions of facts and law are involved, therefore, both the petitions are being heard and decided together by the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. For the sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition No.10027 of 2008 are being taken as a leading case to understand the controversy. CWP No.10027 of 2008 2 Undisputedly, in the village consolidation operation was carried out and was finalized way back in 1999. Respondent No.4 also participated in the consolidation proceedings. Sugan Chand and others predecessor-in-interest of Suresh Kumar-petitioner were allotted and put in possession of the property in dispute by completing the demarcation on the spot. Petitioner has purchased the share of Sugan Chand vide sale deed dated 27.9.2005. Petitioner is in continuous possession of the property in dispute. Om Parkash-respondent No.4 first of all mortgaged his share in favour of Mathoram on 19.4.2005 and thereafter Mathoram has executed one sale deed in favour of Smt. Rakha wife of respondent No.4 on 26.10.2005. Om Parkash-respondent No.4 being husband of Smt. Rekha filed an appeal under Section 21(3) of the Consolidation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Settlement Officer alleging that he has purchased land of Sr. No.110 and in possession of the land of Sr. No.37, therefore, his land may be attached with the land of Sr. No.43/1, 43/2 and 110 so that entire area may remain intact. Learned Consolidation Officer observed that applicant (respondent No.4 herein) has ownership right of area of the land at Sr. No.43/1 and 43/2 and has purchased the area of land of Sr. N.110, therefore, land of Sr. No.37 be attached with the land of the applicant vide order dated 7.11.2005. Feeling aggrieved from the order of Settlement Officer, an appeal was preferred before the Assistant Director Consolidation, Rohtak, which was dismissed by the Assistant Director Consolidation, thereafter petition of the petitioner filed under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act, 1948 was also dismissed by the Director CWP No.10027 of 2008 3 Consolidation, Haryana, vide order dated 3.7.2007. Feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by all the three authorities, petitioner has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court by way of present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record. Undisputedly, consolidation was finalized way back in 1999. Undisputedly, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner Sh. Sugan Chand and others were allotted land of Sr. No.37 and Om Parkash, respondent No.4, was allotted land of Sr. No.43/1, 43/2 and 110. Thereafter, respondent No.4, who did not challenge the consolidation scheme before finalization in 1999, all of sudden thereafter mortgaged land of his share i.e. of Sr. No.110 in favour of Madhoram on 19.4.2005 and thereafter Rekha wife of Om Parkash, respondent No.4, has purchased the same very land from Madhoram vide sale deed dated 26.10.2005 and thereafter Om Parkash has filed appeal under Section 21(3) of the Act challenging the allotment of the land way back in 1999 in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner. Undisputedly, respondent No.4 directly filed an appeal under Section 21(3) of the Act and all the consolidation authorities in a casual manner disturbed the consolidation scheme, which was finalized in 1999. Change of the chuck (kurrah) after six years from the date of finalization of the consolidation cannot be said to be legal and justified on the request of the same person, who himself could have challenged the finalization of the consolidation scheme prior to 1999. Moreover, since Om Parkash has no interest in CWP No.10027 of 2008 4 the land of Sr. No.110, therefore, he had absolutely no locus to challenge the same after the purchase of the same very land by his wife through his mortgagee Madhoram. Petitions are allowed. Impugned judgments are quashed. Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. (Alok Singh) Judge July 26, 2011 R.S.