CWP No. 3849 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 3849 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: May 23, 2011 Gobind Singh .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others .......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. Vikas Mehsempuri, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. G.S. Attariwala, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. S.S. Salar, Advocate, for respondents no. 5 to 7. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition challenges order Annexure P-5 dated 08.10.2008, passed by respondent no. 1-Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Punjab, Revenue Department under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short 'The Act'). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in his only argument, contends that order passed by Consolidation Officer Annexure P-3 dated 15.12.2005 under Section 23 (2) of the Act could only be challenged under provisions of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. The respondents, however, have challenged the order under Section 42 of the Act. 3. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel. CWP No. 3849 of 2009 2 4. Section 23 (1) and (2) of the Act reads as under:- "23. Right to possession of new holdings.-- (1) If all the owners and tenants affected by the repartition, as carried out under sub-section (1) of Section 21, agree to enter into possession of the holdings allotted to them thereunder, the Consolidation Officer may allow them to enter into such possession forthwith or from such date as may be specified by him. (2) If all the owners and tenants as aforesaid do not agree to enter into possession under sub- section (1), they shall be entitled to possession of the holdings and tenancies allotted to them from such date as may be determined by the Consolidation Officer and published in the prescribed manner in the estate or estates concerned; and the Consolidation Officer shall, if necessary, put them in physical possession of the holding to which they are so entitled including standing crops, if any, and for doing so may exercise the powers of a Revenue Officer under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. (3) .........." 5. Section 42 of the Act reads as under:- "42. Power of State Government to call for proceedings.-- The State Government may at any time for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed, scheme prepared or CWP No. 3849 of 2009 3 confirmed or repartition made by any officer under Act, call for and examine the record of any case pending before or disposed of by such officer and may pass order in reference thereto as it thinks fit. Provided that no order or scheme or repartition shall be varied or reversed without giving the parties interested notice to appear and opportunity to be heard except in cases where the State Government is satisfied that the proceedings have been vitiated by unlawful consideration. 6. Perusal of later portion of provisions of sub Section 2 of Section 23 of the Act indicates that in case the Consolidation Officer thinks it necessary, he can put the persons in physical possession of the holding to which they are so entitled including standing crops, if any, and for doing so may exercise the powers of a Revenue Officer under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1987. Language of the provisions suggests that in case there is resistance to handing over of possession after finalization of partition/repartition proceedings, the Consolidation Officer can exercise the power of a revenue officer under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. 7. Powers under Section 42 of the Act are wide and vast enough to entitle the State Government at any time to see the legality or propriety of any order passed under the Act, after calling for and examining the record of any case pending before or disposed of by such officer. 8. In view of the language of provisions of Section 42 of the Act itself, I do not find that the objection raised by the petitioner can be CWP No. 3849 of 2009 4 justified. 9. Petition dismissed. 23.05.2011 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?