MANSA RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mansa Ram seeks a writ in the nature of Certiorari so as to quash orders dated 27.7.1984 Annexure P2 as also orders passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 12.10.1984 Annexure P6 as also order dated 4.9.1987 Annexure P8 passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings in the present writ petition filed by him under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Brief facts on which the aforesaid relief has been sought to be based are that consolidation scheme in the village was framed in the year 1962 under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter to be called the Act of 1948) and the re-partition proceedings were carried out immediately there after. The copy of the scheme in so far as it is relevant for the purpose of deciding the present controversy has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P1. Shri Darya Singh who has been arrayed as respondent No. 2 in the present writ petition filed an application under Section 42 of the Act of 1948 pleading therein that consolidation proceedings in the village were carried out in the year 1961-62 and Khasra No. 562 which belonged to him prior to consolidation proceedings had been earmarked for him as also others during consolidation proceedings and inasmuch as there was a clerical mistake, the same should be corrected. During the consolidation proceedings, plot No. 562 was reserved after verification in the names of following right holders :-

(3.) After the remand, the officer concerned dealing with the matter inspected the record as also on spot inspection, the necessary corrections were carried out. The aforesaid order was, however, appealed by the petitioners. Vide Annexure P7, the appeal was dismissed, thus, constraining the petitioner to carry a petition under Section 42 of the Act of 1948 before the Assistant Director of Consolidation of Holdings. Order Annexure P2 was upheld even in petition filed under Section 42 on that behalf vide Annexure P8. It is these orders which have been challenged in the present petition.