IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.222 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.7.2009 Gram Panchayat. -----Appellant Vs. Consolidation Officer and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. S.D. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. V.K. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. P.K. Gupta, Advocate for respondents. ----- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition of the appellant against order dated 30.10.1998, sanctioning mutation in compliance of earlier order of the Additional Director, Consolidation dated 22.5.1996, Annexure P-2. In the said order, it was, inter-alia, held as under:- “...According to High Court rulings 1992 PLR 1 page 616, the owners of shamlat hasab rasad is the LPA No.222 of 2007 village khewatdars. The illegal mutation sanctioned in favour of gram panchayat has no effect on the rights of the khewatdars. According to Hon’ble High Court rulings 1992 PLJ page 387 Nahar Singh Vs. Addl. Director, the owners of Shamlat Hasab Rasad land is the khewatdars of the village. Gram Panchayat or Nagar Panchayat has no right with this land. Khewatdars can distribute such land at any time. According to Hon’ble High Court rulings, PLJ 1991 page 46, the distribution of such lands after 25- 30 years of consolidation, has the right for distribution. The objection of respondents that their land comes under section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands, has no weightage. As per rules, u/s 42, the distribution of such land can be made. The remaining objections raised by the respondents being vague are rejected. The demand of the petitioners is justified. According to the demand of the petitioners, during the consolidation scheme, this land was mutated in the name of gram panchayat, is being distributed and the illegal mutation sanctioned in favour of the gram panchayat is ignored and is hereby ordered to redistribute the land among the khewatdars of the village according to their due shares as per jamabandi for the year 1993-94, as mentioned below....” 2. Against the said order dated 22.5.1996, the appellant filed writ petition in this Court being C.W.P. No.10626 of 1996, which was dismissed on 23.7.1996. Thus, rights of the parties were crystallized upto this Court. Thereafter, impugned order 2 LPA No.222 of 2007 dated 30.10.1998 was passed in compliance of the earlier orders. 3. Learned Single Judge held that earlier writ petition having been dismissed, the second petition could not be entertained. However, liberty was given to the appellant to file appeal under Section 21(3) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short, “the Act”). 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. In view of the fact that earlier writ petition against order dated 22.5.1996 was dismissed on 23.7.1996, second petition, in effect, challenging the very same order, was not maintainable. In any case, the learned Single Judge has given liberty to the appellant to file appeal under Section 21(3) of the Act, if so advised. In these circumstances, no ground is made out to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 6. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 21, 2009 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) ashwani JUDGE 3