IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) L.P.A. No. 738 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : 09.02.2011 Mahender Singh and others .... APPELLANTS Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS (2) L.P.A. No. 480 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : 09.02.2011 Sri Ram .... APPELLANT Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS (3) L.P.A. No. 874 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : 09.02.2011 Karam Singh and others .... APPELLANTS Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS (4) L.P.A. No. 995 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : 09.02.2011 Karam Singh and others .... APPELLANTS Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS LPA No. 738 of 2010 & 16 other connected appeals -2- (5) L.P.A. No. 996 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : 09.02.2011 Mange Ram and others .... APPELLANTS Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS (6) L.P.A. No. 1037 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : 09.02.2011 Rajinder Singh and others .... APPELLANTS Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS (7) L.P.A. No. 1333 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : 09.02.2011 Satpal .... APPELLANT Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS (8) L.P.A. No. 1338 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : 09.02.2011 Dharambir alias Karamvir .... APPELLANT Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS LPA No. 738 of 2010 & 16 other connected appeals -3- (9) L.P.A. No. 1339 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : 09.02.2011 Mithan Singh .... APPELLANT Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS (10) L.P.A. No. 1340 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : 09.02.2011 Jaibir Singh .... APPELLANT Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS (11) L.P.A. No. 1341 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : 09.02.2011 Subhash .... APPELLANT Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS (12) L.P.A. No. 1418 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : 09.02.2011 Sugan Chand .... APPELLANT Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS LPA No. 738 of 2010 & 16 other connected appeals -4- (13) L.P.A. No. 1422 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : 09.02.2011 Megh Raj .... APPELLANT Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS (14) L.P.A. No. 1423 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : 09.02.2011 Kulbir Singh .... APPELLANT Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS (15) L.P.A. No. 1454 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : 09.02.2011 Som Pal .... APPELLANT Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS (16) L.P.A. No. 1477 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : 09.02.2011 Jai Narain .... APPELLANT Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS LPA No. 738 of 2010 & 16 other connected appeals -5- (17) L.P.A. No. 1478 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : 09.02.2011 Ram Mehar .... APPELLANT Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL Present: Mr. Sarjit Singh, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the appellants (in LPAs No. 738 and 480 of 2010) Mr. S.K. Pipat, Senior Advocate, with Mr. M.K. Pundir, Advocate, for the appellants (in LPA No. 874 of 2010) Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the appellants (in LPAs No. 995 and 996 of 2010) None for the appellants (in LPA No. 1037 of 2010) Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants (in LPAs No. 1333, 1338, 1339, 1340, 1341, 1418, 1422, 1423, 1454, 1477 and 1478 of 2010) Mr. D. Khanna, Addl. A.G., Haryana (in all the appeals) Mr. C.B. Goel and Mr. Himanshu Aggarwal, Advocates, for the private respondents (in all the appeals) Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No. 12 in LPA No. 738 of 2010 for respondent No.11 in LPA No. 480 of 2010 and for respondent No. 6 in LPA No. 874 of 2010. * * * LPA No. 738 of 2010 & 16 other connected appeals -6- SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. This order shall dispose of Letters Patent Appeals No. 738, 480, 874, 995, 996, 1037, 1333, 1338, 1339, 1340, 1341, 1418, 1422, 1423, 1454, 1477 and 1478 of 2010. All these 17 appeals are arising from the common order dated March 2, 2010, passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 12795 of 2006, vide which 26 writ petitions were disposed of. In the second round of litigation, the appellants or their predecessors, who had purchased the share in the shamilat deh land from the proprietors of three villages, namely Amritpur Kalan, Amritpur Khurd and Keharwali, are challenging the order dated March 2, 2010, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petitions filed by them, praying for quashing the order dated July 11, 2006, passed by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana, dismissing their petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), have been dismissed. In the present case, dispute is regarding the consolidation of the shamilat deh land of the aforesaid three villages. So far as the land under the ownership of the right holders of these villages is concerned, consolidation regarding the same has already been effected. Regarding the shamilat deh land, consolidation proceedings were started in the year 1965- 66. At that time, scheme of the consolidation proceedings was challenged LPA No. 738 of 2010 & 16 other connected appeals -7- by the appellants and some other persons. Ultimately, the same was set aside by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 3143 of 1986. Thereafter, a fresh consolidation scheme was prepared on February 8, 1995, which was again challenged by the appellants and other right holders of these three villages, but their writ petitions were dismissed by this Court and the appeal, filed by them, was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on September 6, 2005. According to the fresh consolidation scheme, by inviting the objections under Section 21 (2) of the Act from the effected persons, having share in the shamilat deh, the Consolidation Officer carried out re-partition. Undisputedly, none of the appellants filed any objection to the re-partition, proposed by the Consolidation Officer. Thereafter, the proposed re-partition was confirmed. It is again undisputed position that the order of re-partition, passed by the Consolidation Officer, was not challenged by any of the appellants under sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the Act before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). It is pertinent to mention here that under sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the Act, any person aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer under sub-section (2) may within one month of that order file an appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). Sub- section (4) of Section 21 of the Act further provides the second appeal against the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) to the Assistant Director of Consolidation, which can be filed within sixty days of that order. But none of the appellants availed the aforesaid remedy against the LPA No. 738 of 2010 & 16 other connected appeals -8- order of re-partition. However, they filed a petition under Section 42 of the Act. Though in that petition, the appellants are alleged to have challenged the illegal and arbitrary partition, but virtually they had challenged the scheme of consolidation, which had already been confirmed upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. On July 11, 2006, the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana, by passing a detailed speaking order and noticing that the appellants were again trying to delay the matter, challenging the order of the Consolidation Officer on one pretext or the other, dismissed the said petition. The said order was challenged by the appellants by filing various writ petitions, which have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by a common order dated March 2, 2010. In nutshell, the challenge by the appellants to the order of re- partition is two fold. Firstly, that in the consolidation proceedings, conducted in the year 1965, they were allotted large area, whereas this time in the second consolidation, their allotment of land has been drastically reduced. Secondly, that some of the right holders of the villages had been allotted land despite the fact that they had sold their share in the shamilat deh. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the impugned order as well as the order, passed by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana, which are detailed one, we do not find any merit in both the aforesaid contentions. In our view, on the pretext of LPA No. 738 of 2010 & 16 other connected appeals -9- the aforesaid two contentions, the appellants are challenging the new scheme of consolidation, which has already been upheld upto the Apex Court. As far as the first contention is concerned, it has been found that as per the scheme, the total shamilat deh land of three villages, available for consolidation, was 16660 Bighas 1 Biswa, out of which, under the Dikshit Award, the area measuring 2187 Bighas 3 Biswas has gone to Uttar Pradesh and 4598 Bighas 5 Biswas of land was reserved for the right holders, whose land was taken away and submerged in the Yamuna river. According to the scheme, the remaining area of 9607 Bighas 5 Biswas was re-partitioned amongst all the right holders of three villages, including the appellants. In the earlier consolidation scheme, which was quashed, no provision was made for Dikshit Award, according to which, certain area had gone to Uttar Pradesh and certain area was reserved for the right holders, whose land was taken away and submerged in the Yamuna river. Therefore, after making provision on these accounts, share of the right holders in the shamilat deh land was bound to be reduced. It is pertinent to mention here that while upholding the scheme of partition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically noticed that while re-partitioning the shamilat deh, availability of land on account of the aforesaid two aspects has to be taken care of. The second contention is also without any substance. In the new consolidation scheme, a condition has been laid down that the shamilat deh land to the extent of 4598 Bighas 5 Biswas was reserved for allotment to the original right holders, whose land was taken away and submerged in LPA No. 738 of 2010 & 16 other connected appeals -10- the Yamuna river. Those original right holders have not been allotted land from the shamilat deh being the shareholders in the shamilat deh, but they have been allotted land, because the land allotted to them in the consolidation of their private land holdings had been taken away and submerged in the Yamuna river. Therefore, there may be some right holders, who have sold their share in the shamilat deh, but the land allotted to them in the consolidation of their private land might have been taken away and submerged in the Yamuna river. In order to compensate them, their land holdings was made good from the shamilat deh. This was also one of the part of the new consolidation scheme, which has been approved upto the Apex Court. Even otherwise, re-partition is only execution of the scheme of partition. Therefore, there was no illegality in the partition of the land. Except the aforesaid two contentions, it is not the case of either of the appellants that according to their share, their entitlement in the remaining shamilat deh land was more and they have been given less area. None of the appellants individually raised objection to the proposed partition, which was confirmed by the Consolidation Officer. Even before the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, as well as the before the learned Single Judge, this was not their case. The Director, Consolidation of Holdings, in his order, which has been quoted in extenso by the learned Single Judge, has discussed all these aspects and it has been held that in re- partition, all the appellants have been given land according to their entitlement. It has been found that some of the appellants are in possession LPA No. 738 of 2010 & 16 other connected appeals -11- of land in excess of their share in the shamilat deh land This is the reason that the appellants, on one pretext or the other, have been filing the objections/petitions and delaying the delivery of possession of the land to the rightful persons. They do not want to divest their possession, which is in excess of their share in the shamilat deh land. It has been specifically held by the learned Single Judge that the appellants have failed to place on record any material to indicate that the private respondents had been allotted land more than their entitlement. Undisputedly, even the order of the Consolidation Officer re-partitioning the land was never challenged. Even the said order was not placed before the learned Single Judge as well as before this Court, for its perusal (nor such order can be directly challenged under Section 42 of the Act or by way of filing a writ petition). In our opinion, virtually the appellants are not challenging the order of re-partition, rather in nutshell, they are challenging the scheme of consolidation, which has already been upheld upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, in our opinion, there is no merit in these appeals and the order, passed by the learned Single Judge, does not require any interference. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE February 09, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) ndj JUDGE