Civil Writ Petition No.16436 of 2007 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 18, 2009 Baldev Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS The Director, Land Record, Punjab, Jalandhar & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr.Rahul Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Praveen Chander Goyal, Addl.A.G.Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr.R.K.Battas, Advocate and Mr.H.R.Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent Nos.3 to 9. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Ganda Singh, the predecessor in interest of the petitioner, was allotted agriculture land comprised in Khasra No.41/8/3 (2-6), 9/2(4-18) in Village Kapoorgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, after consolidation vide order passed by the Consolidation Civil Writ Petition No.16436 of 2007 : 2 : Officer dated 17.8.1964. This land allotted to Ganda Singh was in lieu of his interest in land measuring 8 kanals 11 marlas, which fell to the share of respondent Nos.3 to 9 or their predecessor in interest. This land is in their possession. Respondent Nos.3 to 9 did not allow Ganda Singh or the petitioner to enter into possession of land allotted to him by the Consolidation Officer. Rather, they filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the petitioner from interfering in their peaceful possession over the land, which had in fact been allotted to predecessor in interest of the petitioner (Ganda Singh). This civil suit was decreed by Additional Civil Judge on 17.3.2002. The petitioner filed an appeal against the same before Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, which was dismissed on 11.2.2006. Additional District Judge held that Khasra No.41//9/2 (4-18), 8/3 (2-6) had indeed been allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner on 17.8.1964 but this order was never implemented qua their predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner. Relying upon the ratio of law laid down in Rame Gowda (D) by L.Rs Vs. Mrs.Varadappa Naido (D) by L.Rs, 2004 (1) RCR (Civil) 519, Additional District Judge upheld the decision granting injunction against the petitioner, though he was true owner. The petitioner apparently did not impugn this order but instead filed a petition under Section 23(2) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “Consolidation Act”), praying for a direction that the petitioner be put into physical and actual possession of the land allotted to him. This petition was dismissed on 27.4.2006, against which the petitioner filed a revision before Director, Land Civil Writ Petition No.16436 of 2007 : 3 : Records, under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act. This revision petition was also dismissed on 14.3.2007 on the ground that the petition was time barred. These orders are accordingly impugned through the present writ petition. On notice having been issued, written statement on behalf of the respondents is filed. Pedigree table would show that Ganda Singh had two wives. Petitioner, Baldev Singh, is a grand son of Ganda Singh, being son of Bakshish Singh through second wife of his grand father. It is stated that he is entitled to 1/10th share in the land. It is pointed out that Ganda Singh was allotted 7 Kanals 4 Marlas land of those khasra numbers, which were in possession of the respondents. As per the reply, Ganda Singh could get this land only in lieu of land measuring 8 kanals 11 marlas which he had to surrender first in hotch potch consolidation. As per the reply this land continued to be in occupation of his sons and grand sons. One of his grand son, Shamsher Singh is stated to have sold land to Garja Singh and some land is also sold to Kartar Singh. It is accordingly pleaded that the petitioner can not opt to retain the land which he had to surrender and still claim the land allotted in lieu of it. Other objections have also been raised, one of which is that the matter has already been decided by the Civil Court and the same question can not be raised and decided over again after such a long time. Accordingly, prayer is made for dismissal of the writ petition, by pointing out that the petitioner has sold part of land and thus, he is estopped from challenging it now. Consolidation Officer, while dismissing the application filed by the petitioner, has referred to order dated 11.2.2006 passed Civil Writ Petition No.16436 of 2007 : 4 : by Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, which was placed before him. The appeal filed by petitioner, Baldev Singh, was dismissed through this order. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed this application under Section 23(2) of the Consolidation Act. Prayer is for giving possession of the land to the petitioner in terms of order dated 17.8.1964 passed by the Consolidation Officer. Consolidation Officer referred to the fact that the petitioner had already approached the Civili Court with regard to the same land. He also noticed that the petitioner is not mentioned as owner in the jamabandi and accordingly dismissed the application. It appears that Consolidation Officer took the orders passed by Civil Court into consideration and rejected the prayer. The Director, Land Records, though took notice of the fact that the civil suit was filed, which was decreed against which the appeal was dismissed but without taking into consideration the effect thereof, dismissed the appeal on the ground that these powers can not be exercised after a period of 11 years. He, however, has not taken into consideration the effect of order passed by the Civil Court which was upheld in the appeal. Apparently, even if the Director had a jurisdiction to entertain revision against the order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for seeking possession of the land, he was required to see the effect of order passed by the Civil Court. No submission on this aspect was made before me by both the counsel. Counsel for the petitioner only referred to certain judgments to urge that delay in filing the application would not be a valid ground to decline the relief sought. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, referred to the fact that the possession of the land can not be given to the Civil Writ Petition No.16436 of 2007 : 5 : petitioner unless he gives up the land in his possession in lieu of which this land was allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner. The effect of the order passed by the Civil Court and the jurisdiction to entertain this application in the background of the order passed by the Civil Court would also have to be taken into account, which apparently has not been done. Accordingly, it will be appropriate to remand this case back to the Director, Land Records, to consider this aspect and to decide if this application could be maintained for handing over possession in view of the injunction order granted by the Civil Court and upheld in the appeal. In other words, it is required to be seen if the authorities under the Consolidation Act could issue direction for handing over possession to the petitioner, when there is order of injunction standing in favour of the respondents. The parties would be at liberty to raise pleas regarding maintainability of the application on account of delay. The case is remanded to respondent No.2 to decide it afresh in the light of observations made above. The parties through their counsel are directed to appeal before the Director, Land Records. The petition is disposed of with the above observations. May 18, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE