Civil Writ Petition No.6794 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.6794 of 1992 Date of Order: 09.08.2011 Raghu Dev Sharma and another ...Petitioners Versus Director, Consolidation and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present:Mr.Amarjeet Markan, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. S.S.Sahu, AAG, Punjab for respondents no.1 to 3 Ms. Shikha Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.4. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing orders dated 22.04.1987 (Annexure P-7), 17.01.1990 (Annexure P-9), 29.01.1991 (Annexure P-11) and 13.02.1992( Annexures P-1). The Additional Director Consolidation passed an order dated 22.04.1987, calling upon the Consolidation Officer to make good the shortfall in land allotted to the predecessor of Mehanga Singh, respondent no.4. The Consolidation Officer passed an order dated 17.01.1990, allotting additional land to Mehanga Singh. Aggrieved by this order, Raghu Dev Sharma filed a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holding Civil Writ Petition No.6794 of 1992 -2- (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Consolidation Act'). The Additional Director, directed the Consolidation Officer to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing to Raghu Dev Sharma. The Consolidation Officer passed a fresh order dated 17.01.1990 once again allotting additional land to respondent no.4. Raghu Dev Sharma filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer, which was dismissed on 06.11.1990 and thereafter filed a petition under Section 42 of the Act, which was dismissed by the Additional Director, Consolidation, on 29.01.1991 by holding that as Raghu Dev Sharma is not affected by the impugned order he has no locus-standi to file the petition. However, liberty was granted to file a separate petition. The petitioners, thereafter filed a separate petition under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act, which was dismissed by the Director Consolidation on 13.02.1992, on the ground that the Additional Director, Consolidation, has already dismissed a similar petition. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are adversely affected by allotment of land adjoining the drain, to respondent no.4. The petition filed under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act, challenging orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer was wrongly dismissed for want of locus standi but with liberty to file a Civil Writ Petition No.6794 of 1992 -3- separate petition. The petitioners filed a separate petition, which was dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioners have, therefore, been deprived of their remedy to impugn orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer. It is argued that even if the finding with respect to locus-standi is affirmed, the separate petition filed in accordance with the liberty granted by the Additional Director, Consolidation should have been decided by the Director, Consolidation, on merits. It is prayed that the writ petition may be allowed and the Director, Land Records, should be directed to decide the matter on merits. Counsel for respondent no.4 submits that as there was a shortfall in land, allotted to respondent no.4's vendor, during consolidation, the Consolidation Officer, rightly ordered that the deficiency be made good. The appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the Settlement Officer as was the petition filed under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act. The petitioners, therefore, had no right to file a fresh petition under Section 42 of the Act. Even otherwise the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the allotment of land as they have no right in the land in dispute. It is prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders. As is apparent from the narrative of facts respondent no.4 approached the Additional Director, Consolidation, to make Civil Writ Petition No.6794 of 1992 -4- good an alleged deficiency in his land. The Additional Director, Consolidation, directed the Consolidation Officer to examine the matter and make good the deficiency, if any, but without hearing the petitioners. As the allotment made to respondent no.4, affected the rights of the petitioners, they approached the Additional Director Consolidation, who passed an order directing the Consolidation Officer to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The Consolidation Officer thereafter passed an order, once again, allotting additional land to respondent no.4. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer. The petitioners preferred a petition under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act, which was dismissed on 29.01.1991 by holding that the petitioners have no locus-standi to challenge the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, but liberty was granted to file a separate petition. The separate petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the Director Consolidation, as not maintainable, in view of the order dated 29.01.1991, passed by the Additional Director. The orders passed by the Additional Director on 29.01.1991 and the Director, Consolidation on 13.02.1992 are to say the least illegal and arbitrary for lack of any reason much less a discernible process of reasoning. This apart the finding that the petitioners do not have locus-standi to challenge orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer Civil Writ Petition No.6794 of 1992 -5- is inherently flawed. The Director, Consolidation, had, in his initial order directed the Consolidation Officer to hear the petitioners before allotting land to respondent no.4. The petitioners are party to proceedings before the Consolidation Officer and have filed an appeal against his order. To, therefore, hold that the petitioners do not have locus-standi to file a petition under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act defies logic, both legal and factual. After holding that the petitioners do not have locus-standi to challenge orders, passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer, the Additional Director Consolidation, strangely enough, granted liberty to the petitioners to file a separate petition, thereby negating her finding that the petitioners do not have locus standi. The injustice meted out to the petitioners, by the Additional Director, Consolidation, was compounded by the Director, Consolidation, as the separate petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed by holding that in view of order passed by the Additional Director Consolidation, on 29.01.1991, the second petition is not maintainable. The Director Consolidation, failed to discern that liberty was granted to the petitioner to file a separate petition and, therefore, the separate petition could not be dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioners have been unjustly and illegally deprived of a remedy to impugn orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer. Civil Writ Petition No.6794 of 1992 -6- In view of the error of jurisdiction, committed by the Director, Consolidation, Punjab, the writ petition is partly allowed and the order dated 13.02.1992, Annexure P-1 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Director, Land Records, Jalandhar, to decide the petition, filed by the petitioners, afresh and in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Director, Land Records, Jalandhar, on 18.10.2011. August 09, 2011 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE