CWP No.6257 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6257 of 1989 Date of decision: 15.09.2010 Joginder Singh ..... Petitioner Versus Secretary to Government Punjab, Revenue Department (Consolidation Department) Civil Secretariat, Punjab, Chandigarh, and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Ms.Avtar Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.C.S.Brar, DAG, Punjab for respondents no.1 to 3. None for respondents no.4 to 6. ***** RAJIVE BHALLA, J. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Consolidation Officer, Hoshiarpur, to implement orders dated 20.02.1987 and 28.03.1984 (Annexure P-1 and P-2) passed by the Director Consolidation of Holdings Punjab and the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings Punjab, respectively. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Additional Director Consolidation passed an order on 20.11.1975, directing the Consolidation Officer to ensure that the area under the river bed is returned to the landowner and the petitioner is duly compensated with land from Fateh Singh. After a long drawn legal battle, that included the filing of a writ petition, the Director Consolidation, vide order dated 20.02.1987 upheld the order dated 20.03.1984, passed by the Additional Director Consolidation and directed the Consolidation Officer to implement the order dated CWP No.6257 of 1989 -2- 20.11.1975. The Consolidation Officer, Hoshiarpur, however, consigned the proceedings to record on the ground that the petitioner has not put in appearance. The order passed by the Consolidation Officer is malafide and illegal as the notice allegedly issued by the Consolidation Officer was not received by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been running from pillar to post for more than three decades, to get the order dated 20.11.1975 implemented but to no avail. It is prayed that in view of these facts, the Consolidation Officer should be directed to implement the order dated 20.11.1975, as directed in the orders dated 28.03.1984 and 20.02.1987. The contesting respondents, on the other hand have pleaded in their reply that the petitioner has concealed the filing of an appeal, against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, Hoshiarpur and its dismissal on 11.04.1989. The petition should therefore, be dismissed or the petitioner should be relegated to his remedy of filing an appeal under Section 21(4) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), before the Assistant Director Consolidation. It is also pleaded that the order dated 20.11.1975 has been implemented and the petitioner is in cultivating possession of the land. The petitioner has filed this petition merely to harass the contesting respondents. I have heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the paper book and considered the orders appended therewith. Before proceeding to decide the petition, it would be appropriate to narrate the facts. Consolidation proceedings commenced in early 1960. Aggrieved by an order passed during re-partition, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 42 of the Act. Vide order dated 20.11.1975, a direction was issued to the CWP No.6257 of 1989 -3- Consolidation Officer that area allotted to the petitioner under the river bed should be returned to the original owner and the petitioner should be compensated from the area of Fateh Singh. The Consolidation Officer, did not comply with the order, compelling the petitioner to approach the Director Consolidation, under Section 42 of the Act. Vide order dated 28.03.1984, the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, once again directed the Consolidation Officer to implement the order dated 20.11.1975. Amrik Singh etc., the private respondents, filed a writ petition impugning this order. The writ petition was disposed of as pre-mature with liberty to Amrik Singh etc. to file an appropriate application for setting aside the impugned order on the ground that they had not been afforded opportunity of hearing. Amrik Singh etc. filed a petition before the Additional Director, who vide an interim order dated 09.10.1985, recalled the order dated 28,03.1984 and directed a fresh hearing of the original petition filed by the petitioner. The Additional Director, dismissed the petition on 22.11.1985, without serving any notice upon the petitioner. The petitioner therefore filed an application for setting aside these orders, before the Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, who vide order dated 20.02.1987 accepted the petition set aside the orders dated 09.10.1985 and 22.11.1985 and directed the Consolidation Officer to implement the order dated 20.11.1975. The dispute thereafter came up for consideration before the Consolidation Officer, Jalandhar but was transferred to the Consolidation Officer, Hoshiarpur. The Consolidation Officer, Hoshiarpur consigned the matter to records on 30.01.1989 on the ground that Joginder Singh has refused to accept the notice requiring him to appear before the Consolidation Officer. CWP No.6257 of 1989 -4- The above narrative, illustrates the ease with which, officers empowered to decide rights of parties subvert the process of law, condemn harassed litigants to unnecessary and avoidable litigation and subvert the process of law. The conduct of the Consolidation Officer in consigning the case to records and of the Settlement Officer in dismissing the appeal, on the plea of limitation, cannot but be deprecated. The petitioner was granted relief on 20.11.1975. Despite orders dated 28.03.1984 and 20.02.1987, passed by the Additional Director and the Director Consolidation, respectively directing the Consolidation Officer to implement order dated 20.11.1975, these orders remain an empty piece of paper. The petitioner has been deprived of his just due for more than two decades. By way of the order dated 20.11.1975, the Consolidation Officer was directed to allot land other than the land allotted to the petitioner during re-partition proceedings. The Consolidation Officer therefore, had no jurisdiction to consign proceedings for implementation of this order, to records. The Consolidation Officer was apparently under an impression that the absence of the petitioner entitled him to disobey orders, passed by his superiors. It is true that the petitioner has not disclosed the filing and the dismissal of an appeal, against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, but this alone would not non-suit the petitioner, in view of the grave injustice perpetuated, by the Consolidation Officer. In view of what has been recorded hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed, the orders dated 30.01.1989 and 11.04.1989, passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer respectively are set aside but instead of remitting the matter to the Consolidation Officer, the prayer for implementation of the order 20.11.1975, is forwarded to the Director CWP No.6257 of 1989 -5- Land Records, Punjab, Jalandhar, who shall ensure, subject to any plea raised by the private respondents, that the Consolidation Officer implements the order dated 20.11.1975 in accordance with law. Till such time as the order is not implemented in its entirety, the Director, Land Records, shall monitor proceedings before the Consolidation Officer. Parties are directed to appear before the Director Land Records, Punjab, Jalandhar, on 15.10.2010. 15.09.2010 [ RAJIVE BHALLA ] shamsher JUDGE