CWP No.16481 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.16481 of 2004 Date of Decision: 21.1.2010 Bhalle Ram .....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Addl.A.G. Haryana for respondent no.1. Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for respondents no.2 to 6. Mr. S.R. Hooda, Advocate for respondent no.7. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioner prays for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 7.11.2003, passed by the Joint Secretary, Government of Haryana, Forest Department, Chandigarh, exercising the powers of the Director under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). Counsel for the petitioner submits that while directing modification of the consolidation scheme and altering the land holding of respondents no.2 to 6, the Director, Consolidation has retrieved land that belongs to the Gram Panchayat. It is submitted that apart from the fact that CWP No.16481 of 2004 2 the Director, Consolidation has not assigned any reason for his decision, he has no jurisdiction to deprive the Gram Panchayat of its ownership. It is prayed that in view of these errors of jurisdiction, the order dated 7.11.2003 should be set aside. Counsel for the private respondents submits that the Director has merely ordered that the path be straightened by exchange of the petitioner's land with land belonging to the panchayat and, therefore, the panchayat has not been divested of any property. It is further submitted that the Director Panchayats, may in the exercise of his powers under Section 42 of the Act direct correction of any error in the scheme of consolidation. As the error in consolidation proceedings was brought to the notice of the Director, his order correcting this error does not require interference. Counsel for the Gram Panchayat submits that the Director had no jurisdiction to deprive the Gram Panchayat of its land, even by way of an exchange and as the Gram Panchayat was not impleaded as a party, the order is a nullity. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order. The Director Consolidation, has no power, under Section 42 of the Act to deprive a panchayat of its land, whether by exchange or otherwise and then also without impleading the Gram Panchayat. In addition, the impugned order does not refer to any error in the consolidation scheme and merely records that both parties want to get the “rasta” straightened. It is no part of the jurisdiction of the Director Consolidation to alter the alignment of a path sanctioned during consolidation particularly when no error is pointed out in the scheme or in repartition proceedings. Furthermore, as is apparent from the array of CWP No.16481 of 2004 3 parties, the Gram Panchayat was not impleaded as a respondent and the order was passed on the basis of an agreement between private parties. The Director should have been conscious of the fact that the land belongs to the Gram Panchayat and his order would divest the Gram Panchayat of its ownership. It would also be necessary to reiterate that the land allotted to a Gram Panchayat can only be dealt with by authorities under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. In view of what has been stated herein above, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 7.11.2003 is set aside, with liberty to the private respondents to seek such other remedy, as may be available to them in accordance with law. 21.1.2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE