CWP No.864 of 1989 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.864 of 1989 Date of decision: 10.2.2010 Ram Asra & others ...Petitioners Versus The Addl. Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Amarjit Markan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Puri, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. M.L. Saini, Advocate, for respondent No.7. None for respondents No.2 to 6. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) Challenge in this petition is to order dated 7th October, 1988, Annexure P-2, passed by respondent No.1, whereby he made certain alterations in the scheme and also decided certain questions pertaining to title. The consolidation in village Rampura took place in the year 1950-51. The instant application was moved by respondents No.2 to 6 on 4th August, 1988 i.e. 38 years thereafter. Respondents No.2 to 6 pleaded that Khewat No.127 was owned by Shamlat Pati Patwar before the consolidation and the same was wrongly entered in the subsequent Jamabandi for the year 1954-55 by the Consolidation Department in Khewat Nos.147-148, Khatoni No.163, measuring 99 CWP No.864 of 1989 2 Bighas 01 Biswas as “Shamlat Pati Hasab Arazi Khewat Pati Patwar” and a prayer was made to correct the same as “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan Pati Patwar”. The Additional Director Consolidation, after hearing the parties, passed the order allowing the prayer made by respondents No.2 to 6. Mr. Markan, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings while exercising his powers under Section 42 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, could not decide the question of title. According to him, the said question can only be decided under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgments delivered by the apex court in Gram Panchayat, Village Sidh v. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, 1997 (1) P.L.J. 313 and Gram Panchayat Nurpur v. State of Punjab, 1997 (1) P.L.J. 268. He has further contended that while directing Khewat Nos.147/163, measuring 99 Bighas 01 Biswas to be shown as Mushtarka Malkan Patti Patwarh instead of ownership of Shamlat Patti Hasab Arazi Khewat Pati Patwarh (Nagar Panchayat Deh), he did not assigned any reasons. According to counsel, this would amount to alteration in the scheme and before arriving at this conclusion, reasons for arriving at such a decision should have been given by the Additional Director. In support of this, he has placed reliance on the judgments reported as Rajinder Singh & others vs. Addl. Director (Consolidation of Holdings) Punjab, 1977 P.L.J. 338 CWP No.864 of 1989 3 (DB). Mr. Markan thus submits that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside being palpably wrong and against the provisions of law. This apart, he has also submitted that the application was preferred by respondents No.2 to 6, 38 years after the consolidation had taken place in the village and the same was barred by limitation. This apart, the residents of the village were not heard before the impugned order was passed. Mr. M.L. Saini, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the Gram Panchayat. He does not oppose prayer for setting-aside the order and remand of the same to the Additional Director for decision afresh. Nobody has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No.2 to 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It appears that the impugned order suffers from legal infirmity. The legal issues involved were either not raised before the authority below or the same were not appreciated in correct perspective. Under the circumstances, I accept the prayer made by learned counsel for the parties to remand the case to the same authority for decision afresh. The impugned order dated 7th October, 1988 (Annexure P-2) is hereby set aside. The authority shall consider the matter afresh after hearing the interested parties. The authority shall also take into consideration the judgments reported as Gram Panchayat CWP No.864 of 1989 4 Sidh's case (supra), Gram Panchayat Nurpur's case (supra) and Rajinder Singh's case (supra) or any other judgment on which reliance is placed by the parties. Allowed in aforesaid terms. The parties through their counsel are directed to remain present before the authority on 25th March, 2010. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 10.2.2010 'rajpal'