Civil Writ Petition No. 4199 of 2007 1 Naib Singh and others Versus Director/Rural Development & Panchayats Pb. Etc. Present: Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Parveen Chander Goyal, Addl.A.G., Punjab for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr.L.S. Bhangu, Advocate for respondent No. 3 ***** The petitioners filed a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. Prayer made in the application was that area measuring 3417 bighas and 17 biswas was described at Shamlat Hasab Rasab Zar Kewat and was in cultivating possession of the proprietors. The petitioners sought re-distribution of this area amongst the shareholder. Director Consolidation accepted this petition on 10.9.1996 and ordered re-distribution of the land. Gram Panchayat filed a writ petition No. 16528 of 1996 before this Court, which was accepted on the ground that the Director had no jurisdiction to give finding that the land in question was a shamlat deh as he could not decide the question of title. The petitioner thereafter on 12.8.1986 filed an application under Section 11 of the Act for deciding the title of the suit land. In terms of notification dated 27.5.1998, the area where the land is situated is transferred to Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, with effect from June, 1998. The Collector/DDPO, Patiala, thus Civil Writ Petition No. 4199 of 2007 2 would have territorial jurisdiction to hear the dispute concerning land in dispute from the date. The Director, Fatehgrah Sahib in the meantime decided the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 11 on 29.1.1999 and held that the Gram Panchayat was the owner of this property. The petitioners subsequently filed an application before the Collector, Patiala on 4.8.2002 seeking decision of question of title of the same property, as the area had been transferred to the District, Patiala. The objection was raised on behalf of the Gram Panchayat that the issue has already been considered and decided by the Collector, Fatehgarh Sahib on 29.1.1999. This prayer of the respondent-Gram Panchayat was rejected on the ground that the Director, Fatehgarh Sahib did not have jurisdiction on the said date to decide the application under Section 11. Collector accordingly directed the parties to lead evidence. This order was impugned before the Commissioner, who has now set aside this order on the ground that the order passed by the Collector, Fatehgarh Sahib on 29.1.1999 was never challenged. The petitioners have thus approached this Court against the order passed by the Commissioner. Counsel for the petitioners contends that the order dated 29.1.1999 passed by the Collector, Fatehgarh Sahib would be without jurisdiction, as on the said date he had no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the dispute, which was situated in an area, which was transferred to District, Patiala. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-Gram Panchayat would say that the petitioners continued to participate in the proceedings even after the transfer of this area. They had led evidence and ultimately order dated Civil Writ Petition No. 4199 of 2007 3 29.1.1999 was passed without any objection have been raised against the Collector continuing with the proceedings though area may have been transferred. Counsel would accordingly contend that the petitioners acquiesced in the proceedings and thus cannot be heard to challenge the jurisdiction of the Collector to pass the order dated 29.1.1999 once it has gone against them. It is seen that the petitioners have not challenged the order dated 29.1.1999. Even if this order was without jurisdiction, it was required to be challenged. The petitiones were bound to challenge this order on the ground that it has been passed by an authority, who have no jurisdiction to pass the said order. The view taken by the Commissioner in the background that order dated 29.1.1999 has not so far been set aside, thus, cannot be faulted. I am thus not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. The petitioners, however, may challenge the order dated 29.1.1999, if so advised, on any ground that is available to them. If they do so within a period of 15 days from today and asks for condonation of delay in filing the appeal etc., their prayer in this regard may be considered sympathetically as they are before the Court agitating their rights. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. May 04, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE