CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1000 OF 1985 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION : October 13, 2010. Parties Name Prem Singh and others ...PETITIONERS VERSUS Addl. Director C/H, Punjab and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Amarjit Markan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Palika Monga, D.A.G., Haryana; Mr. Jasdev Singh, Advocate, JASBIR SINGH, J. ORDER: This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash order dated February 3, 1983 (P-5) passed by respondent No. 1 ordering allotment of 5 Marla plot to each of the private respondents. Scheme for consolidation in village Gadherra, tehsil Sirhind, district Patiala, was published and confirmed on October 16, 1980. Repartition was carried out in the year 1981. Para No. 8 of the consolidation scheme reads thus: “Para 8. In this village under the Scheme of the Government an area in the shape of plots within Lal Lakeer, are verified which have CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1000 OF 1985 -2- been given to the landless workers. Therefore, no non- proprietor who is helping the agriculturists is verified who is required to be allotted area for the use of Abadi. But an area for Gada Khad is to be allotted to the non-proprietors who are helping the agriculturists, the Fard of these persons is attached with the Scheme after verification. They will be allotted land outside the Phirni at double rate and this area will be deducted from the lands of the proprietors from the village proportionately. The non-proprietors will be shown as Gair Marusi in the record under this area. Every Garra Khad will be provided a two Karam wide path.” It appears that in the year 1982, the private respondents filed an application under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1942, Act by stating that they are the landless labourers and are helping the farmers in agriculture pursuits. It was their prayer that as per the provisions of the Consolidation Scheme, they be allotted plots for residential purposes because the land was not allotted to them at the time of repartition. On receipt of above said application, a report was sought from the Assistant Consolidation Officer, who vide his report dated September 4, 1982, affirmed that residential plots and plots for manure pits were allotted to the landless labourers at the time of consolidation. Respondent No. 1, after noticing above said report and other documents on record, passed the order under challenge on February 3, 1983, ordering that 5 Marlas plot be allotted to each of the private respondents. The petitioners filed a review application. At their instance, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1000 OF 1985 -3- order passed on February 3, 1983, was set aside by respondent No. 1 vide order dated October 25, 1983. The private respondents came to this Court by filing CWP No. 2263 of 1984, which was allowed vide order dated January 10, 1985, by observing as under: “It is conceded at the Bar by the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, that the impugned order cannot legally be sustained as it has resulted in review of the earlier order dated 3rd February, 1983. Consequently, we allow this petition with costs and quash the impugned order dated 25th October, 1983, copy annexure P-1 to the petition. The costs are assessed at Rs. 500/-, which shall be paid personally by Shri K.S. Minhas.” Thereafter this writ petition has been filed. Counsel for the parties heard. It is contention of counsel for the petitioners that when the impugned order was passed, findings given in the report, made by the Consolidation Officer, were not considered at all. Counsel for the petitioners has very fairly stated that as per the consolidation scheme, if plot remains to be allotted to any landless labourer, helping the farmers, in the agricultural pursuits, he has no objection to the same. However, it is contention of the counsel for the petitioners that to most of the respondents, plots were allotted at the time of consolidation proceedings and also that they own and possess their individual residential houses in the village and as per para No. 8 of the consolidation scheme, reproduced above, plots were not to be allotted to such like non-proprietors. With the help of counsel for the parties, this Court has perused CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1000 OF 1985 -4- the impugned order. After making reference to the report made by the Consolidation Officer, no further reference was made to its contents. In that report, it is specifically stated that for manure pits, land was allotted to almost all the private respondents and plots measuring 5 Marlas for residential purposes were also allotted to many out of the private respondents. If that is so, it was bounden duty of respondent No. 1 to take note of the report of the Consolidation Officer and then pass an appropriate order. The application has been decided in favour of the private respondents by observing only that the grievance raised by them appears to be genuine. It was said without making reference to the provisions of the consolidation scheme, allotment made to the non-proprietors at the time of implementation of repartition and to the contents of the report of the Consolidation Officer dated September 4, 1982. Order passed is non- speaking one and shows non-application of mind. In view of facts, mentioned above, this writ petition is allowed, order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted to respondent No. 1 to decide it afresh after making reference to the report made by the Consolidation Officers and the provisions of the consolidation scheme. Parties are directed to appear before respondent No. 1 on November 8, 2010, who shall then pass an order as per law within a period of three months thereafter. It is made clear that if no plots were allotted to the private respondents at the time of consolidation as per consolidation scheme, plots be allotted to them. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge October 13, 2010. DKC