CWP No.12357 of 1991 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.12357 of 1991 (O&M) Date of decision:28.07.2010 Gram Panchayat, Village Hassanpur, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana through Administrator Sh.Baljit Singh, Social Education and Panchayat Officer ...... Petitioner VERSUS The State of Punjab through the Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Rural and Development, Punjab and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA. Present: Mr.Amrik Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.C.S.Brar, DAG, Punjab for respondents no.1 to 4. Mr.G.S.Nagra, Advocate for respondents no.8 and 9. ***** RAJIVE BHALLA.J (Oral) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 19.04.1989 and 14.02.1990, passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation, Punjab, Chandigarh and the Consolidation Officer, S.A.S.Nagar, Mohali, respectively. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the land in dispute, is recorded as Gram Panchayat deh and Panchayat deh the Director, Consolidation, has no jurisdiction, to direct the Consolidation Officer, to partition the land amongst proprietors of the village. It is further argued that it has been authoritatively held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat Nurpur Versus State of Punjab, 1997(2) PLR 694 and Gram Panchayat, Village Sidh Versus Additional Director, Consolidation of CWP No.12357 of 1991 (O&M) -2- Holdings, Punjab, 1997(3) RCR(Civil) 491, the Director, Consolidation, exercising powers under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), has no jurisdiction to hold that the land recorded in the name of a Gram Panchahat vests or does not so vest in a Gram Panchayat. The question whether land vests or does not vest in a Gram Panchahat can only be decided by a Collector, exercising powers under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 1961 Act). It is prayed that as the impugned orders are without jurisdiction, the writ petition should be allowed and the impugned orders should be set aside. Counsel for the private respondents, however, submits that the land in dispute does not vest in the Gram Panchayat whether as shamilat or otherwise as prior to consolidation and before enactment of the “Shamilat law” and the 1961 Act, the land in dispute was recorded as Shamilat patti. It is further submitted that in view of Section 2(g) of the Act, only such Shamilat patti land vests in a Gram Panchayat as is used, as per the revenue record, for common purposes of the village. It is prayed that as the land has never been used for common purposes, the Director Consolidation, rightly directed the Consolidation Officer to partition the land. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders and have no hesitation in holding that the Director Consolidation, had no jurisdiction, to direct the Consolidation Officer to partition the land in dispute amongst proprietors or pass an order divesting the Gram Panchayat of its ownership. A dispute whether land vests or does not so vest in a Gram Panchayat can only be decided by a Collector, exercising powers CWP No.12357 of 1991 (O&M) -3- under Section 11 of the 1961 Act. Consolidation Authorities have no jurisdiction to adjudicate such a dispute as upon conclusion of consolidation proceedings, they are rendered functus officio except to the extent provided by Section 42 of the Act. It is therefore, beyond debate that the Additional Director, Consolidation, had no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the respondents and pass an order directing the consolidation officer, to apportion the land amongst the so called proprietors. A reference in this regard may be made to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat Nurpur Versus State of Punjab (supra) and Gram Panchayat, Village Sidh Versus Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, (supra). In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned orders are set aside, with liberty, however, to the private respondents to seek their remedy under Section 11 of the Act. No order as to costs. 28.07.2010 [RAJIVE BHALLA] shamsher JUDGE