IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 5221 of 1985 DATE OF DECISION : 04.08.2010 Gram Panchayat Dandrala Kharod, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala. .... PETITIONER Versus The Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Chandigarh & others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Anish Setia, Advocate, for respondent No.3. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J ( Oral ) Gram Panchayat, Village Dandrala Kharod, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 12.10.1978 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab; order dated 9.11.1984 (Annexure P-5), passed by the Consolidation Officer, Ropar; and the order dated 24.6.1985 (Annexure P-7), passed by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab. The brief facts of the case are that Baroo Singh (respondent CWP No. 5221 of 1985 -2- No.3 herein) filed a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab (Conslidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), raising the contention that the boundary line of village Rorgarh was not correctly shown in the Shajra, prepared during the consolidation. It was contended that at the spot, the boundary line was shown in killa numbers 84/10/2, 11/1, 12, 11/2 and 19. This boundary line was not according to the last settlement. The Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, after considering the prayer made by respondent No.3 came to the conclusion that prima facie there appeared to be some mistake in the boundary line. After perusing the map produced before him, he found that the common boundary line of villages Dandrala Kharod and Rorgarh over-lap each other, therefore, he came to the conclusion that it requires to be fixed according to the old settlement record. While coming to the said conclusion, the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer with a direction to fix the boundary line of both the villages according to the old settlement record, after providing an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned right holders. In pursuance to the said order, the Consolidation Officer, Ropar issued summons to all the concerned persons, including the petitioner-Gram Panchayat. It is admitted position that the petitioner-Gram Panchayat appeared before the Consolidation Officer for two/three times and when the case was fixed for 9.11.1984, a request was made on the summons for adjournment of the case on the ground that the Sarpanch had CWP No. 5221 of 1985 -3- injured his leg. The Consolidation Officer did not adjourn the case and passed the ex-parte order on 9.11.1984, whereby the boundary wall of village Rorgarh was corrected and in consequence of that correction, certain land was deleted from the area of village Rorgarh and given to respondent No.3 Baroo Singh. The said order was passed by the Consolidation Officer under Section 21 (2) of the Act. As per sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the Act, any person aggrieved by the said order can file an appeal within one month of that order before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). Under Section 21 (4) of the Act, second appeal can also be filed against the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) before the Assistant Director of Consolidation. However, in the instant case, the petitioner-Gram Panchayat, instead of filing the first or the second appeal, directly filed a petition under Section 42 of the Act, before the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, challenging the order dated 9.11.1984, passed by the Consolidation Officer. The aforesaid petition has been dismissed by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, vide order dated 24.6.1985, while coming to the conclusion that no such petition was maintainable. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner-Gram Panchayat could not explain as to why the petitioner-Gram Panchayat did not avail the remedies of the first and second appeal, as provided under sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 21 of the Act, and straight way filed the petition under Section 42 of the Act, before the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab. Therefore, I do not find any CWP No. 5221 of 1985 -4- illegality or infirmity in the order dated 24.6.1985 (Annexure P-7), passed by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab. In view of the above, there is no merit in this petition and the same is, hereby, dismissed. However, it will be open for the petitioner-Gram Panchayat now to file the appeal, against the order dated 9.11.1984 (Annexure P-5), passed by the Consolidation Officer, Ropar, if the law so permits. August 04, 2010 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE