Civil Writ Petition No. 9562 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 9562 of 2009 Date of Order: 07.10.2010 Ram Pal ....Petitioner Versus The Director, Consolidation, Haryana and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Ashok Verma ,Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana for respondent no.1 Mr. R.S.Budhwar, Advocate for respondents no.2 to 11. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 30.10.2008, passed by the Director Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana. The facts as pleaded are that Kishna son of Molu was owner of 1/18th share i.e. 18 Bighas and 8 Biswas in joint land measuring 331 Bighas and 4 Biswas. Kishna sold 13 Bighas of land on 28.11.1961 and was, therefore, left with only 5 Bighas and 8 Biswas. During consolidation, however, Kishna was allotted 29 Kanals and 19 Marlas. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), before the Director Consolidation praying that this error be rectified. The Civil Writ Petition No. 9562 of 2009 -2- Director Consolidation has dismissed this petition. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petition was dismissed without reference to the error in the revenue record and primarily on the ground that the application is highly belated. It is argued that in view of the sale of 13 Bighas, Kishna was to be allotted 5 Bighas and 8 Biswas, instead of 29 Kanals and 19 Marlas. The Director, Consolidation should have, therefore, ordered correction of this error, in the revenue record, prepared during consolidation proceedings. Counsel for the private respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner did not raise any such objection during consolidation when separate parcels of land were carved out and allotted. The petitioner's prayer that there is an error in the revenue record, prepared during consolidation, was, therefore, rightly rejected by the Director Consolidation. It is further submitted that as the petitioner has already filed a civil suit, challenging the sale deeds executed by the private respondents, the writ petition should be dismissed. Counsel for the State of Haryana supports the arguments raised by counsel for the private respondents. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The Director Consolidation, dismissed the application on account of a delay of 47 years. However, while holding as above, the Director Consolidation made certain observations on the rights of parties. As per Section 22 of the Act, a Consolidation Officer prepares a new record of rights in accordance with Chapter IV of the Civil Writ Petition No. 9562 of 2009 -3- Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. The record so prepared is deemed to have been prepared under Section 32 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. A person aggrieved, by any entry in the record may file a civil suit as provided by Section 45 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. The petitioners have already filed a civil suit. The Director, Consolidation rightly rejected the petitioner's prayer for correction of the revenue record after 47 years but while doing so, made certain observations on merits. The Director Consolidation should have avoided these observations. In this view of the matter and while dismissing the the writ petition, it is clarified that any observations made by the Director Consolidation on the merits of the controversy, shall be disregarded by the civil court while deciding the civil suit, which is pending adjudication between the parties. October 07, 2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE