GRAM PANCHAYAT KAKRAN Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION
LAWS(SC)-1997-10-50
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on
October 03,1997
Gram Panchayat Kakran
Appellant
VERSUS
Additional Director Of Consolidation
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
GRAM PANCHAYAT VILLAGE KANONDA TEHSIL BAHADURGARH DISTRICT ROHTAK VS. DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS HARYANA CHANDIGARH [REFERRED TO]JAGTAR SINGH VS. ADDITIONAL DIRECTORCONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS JULLUNDUR AND [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
AJIT SINGH VS. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR [LAWS(P&H)-2004-5-75] [REFERRED TO]GRAM PANCHAYAT OF VILLAGE BAN BHAURA VS. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR [LAWS(P&H)-2004-3-107] [REFERRED TO]
PARKASH CHAND VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2002-3-106] [REFERRED]
JASWINDER KAUR VS. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION [LAWS(P&H)-2003-2-66] [REFERRED TO]
GRAM PANCHAYAT OF VILLAGE MAHADIAN VS. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR/CONSOLIDATION [LAWS(P&H)-1999-8-52] [REFERRED]
JAGJIT SINGH VS. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS [LAWS(P&H)-2000-11-84] [REFERRED TO]
GRAM PANCHAYAT OF VILLAGE HARI NAGAR KHERKI VS. DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS, PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2004-9-87] [REFERRED TO]
GRAM PANCHAYAT, VILLAGE KHERI MANIAN VS. DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS, PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2005-5-49] [REFERRED TO]
KITAB SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2012-3-425] [REFERRED]
LATE SMT. BHAGWATI W/D OF LATE SH. RATI RAM VS. CONSOLIDATION OFFICER [LAWS(DLH)-2013-7-99] [REFERRED TO]
DHOOP SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-5-780] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHANDER MORYA VS. THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-1998-8-146] [REFERRED TO]
BALBIR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2010-8-146] [REFERRED TO]
BALKAR SINGH VS. DIRECTOR LAND RECORDS [LAWS(P&H)-1999-9-115] [REFERRED]
GRAM PANCHAYAT, BHATTIAN BET VS. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION, PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2005-1-84] [REFERRED TO]
PIARA SINGH VS. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS, PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2005-3-74] [REFERRED TO]
GRAM PANCHAYAT, VILLAGE SHEKHUPUR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-2005-4-28] [REFERRED TO]
NEHRU UNCHCHATTAR MADHYAMIK VIDYALAYA RASDHAN VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-3-106] [REFERRED TO]
ZEPHYR EXPORTS PVT. LTD. VS. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2012-8-154] [REFERRED TO]
GRAM PANCHAYAT VILLAGE LADHPUR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2014-10-51] [REFERRED TO]
GRAM PANCHAYAT VS. DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS [LAWS(P&H)-1998-9-66] [REFERRED]
LUXMI NARAIN (THROUGH LRS) VS. DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION, HARYANA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2017-12-326] [REFERRED TO]
GRAM PANCHAYAT, MAVI SAPPAN VS. DIRECTOR, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT DEPTT, PUNJAB AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2012-3-114] [REFERRED TO]
JASWANT SINGH VS. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2011-8-27] [REFERRED TO]
BANWARI LAL AND OTHERS VS. COMMISSIONER, HISAR DIVISION, HISAR AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2012-11-161] [REFERRED]
PREM CHAND VS. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION [LAWS(P&H)-2003-4-98] [REFERRED TO]
RAJINDER SINGH VS. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2005-5-23] [REFERRED TO]
GUR AJAIB SINGH VS. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2013-10-453] [REFERRED TO]
GRAM PANCHAYAT VS. SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2013-11-160] [REFERRED TO]
THE GRAM PANCHAYAT, JANAL VS. THE DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION, PUNJAB AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-4-339] [REFERRED TO]
GRAM PANCHAYAT VS. ADDL DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS [LAWS(P&H)-1999-9-92] [REFERRED]
GRAM PANCHAYAT, VILLAGE KOLAR KHURD VS. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION [LAWS(P&H)-2000-7-107] [REFERRED TO]
PRITAM SINGH VS. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION [LAWS(P&H)-2000-7-114] [REFERRED TO]
SURINDER KAUR GREWAL VS. DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS [LAWS(SC)-2003-11-129] [RELIED ON]
GRAM PANCHAYAT, NAWAN KILLA VS. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION [LAWS(P&H)-2000-8-73] [REFERRED TO]
DALBARA SINGH VS. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR [LAWS(P&H)-2004-2-91] [REFERRED TO]
GRAM PANCHAYAT VS. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR [LAWS(P&H)-2013-9-157] [REFERRED TO]
R N SAHNI VS. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER [LAWS(DLH)-2012-7-553] [REFERRED TO]
AMAR NATH VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2001-10-22] [REFERRED TO]
MOHINDER SINGH VS. ADDL. DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH [LAWS(P&H)-2010-10-199] [REFERRED TO]
SUKH RAM DASS VS. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE [LAWS(P&H)-2009-2-81] [REFERRED TO]
MAN SINGH VS. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS, HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2015-2-482] [REFERRED TO]
PRITAM SINGH VS. DIRECTOR, REVENUE RECORD, PUNJAB, JALANDHAR [LAWS(P&H)-2022-12-170] [REFERRED TO]
YOGINDER PAUL SHARMA VS. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR [LAWS(P&H)-2004-4-67] [REFERRED TO]
SUPREME INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(CE)-2003-5-234] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY VS. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2011-5-189] [REFERRED TO]
GRAM PANCHAYAT VS. DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS [LAWS(P&H)-2013-4-186] [REFERRED TO]
GANDA SINGH VS. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND HOLDINGS [LAWS(P&H)-2004-3-105] [REFERRED TO]
DAYA NAND VS. JOINT SECRETARY GOVT OF HARYANA IRRIGATION DEPTT CHANDIGARH [LAWS(P&H)-2000-3-7] [REFERRED]
NIRMAL KAUR VS. DIRECTOR LAND RECORDS PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-11-114] [REFERRED TO]
GRAM PANCHAYAT, HIRDAPUR VS. DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS, PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1999-11-65] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Special leave granted.
(2.)The appellant is the Gram Panchayat of Village Kakran. In consolidation proceedings which took place in the year 1956 under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, the net entitlement of Sangha Singh, father of the 2nd respondent was held to be of the value of 152-14-9 pai and after making deduction of the value 3-4-3 pai for common purposes, he was allotted 149-10-6 pai of land. Resolution No. 120 which is dated 16/6/1956 is under Section 20 of the Act confirming the consolidation scheme. Prior to such confirmation, under Section 19 the draft scheme is required to be published and objections have to be invited which have to be considered within the time prescribed in Section 19. Thereafter under Section 20, after considering the objections, the final scheme has to be confirmed. Under Section 21 the Consolidation Officer is required to carry out repartition in accordance with the scheme of consolidation in the manner set out therein. Under Ss. (2 of Section 21 any person aggrieved by repartition is entitled to file a written objection within 15 days of the publication before the Consolidation Officer. There are further provisions for appeal under Section 21. Under Section 42, power is given to the State government to call for, inter alia, any scheme prepared or confirmed or repartition made by any officer under the Act for the purpose of examining legality or propriety thereof. The section provides that this can be done by the State government at any time. In the present case no objections under Section 21 appear to have been filed by the father of the 2nd respondent who was then alive. However, after 40 years, in the year 1996 the 2nd respondent made an application under Section 42 for reopening the repartition, on the ground that there should not have been any deduction from his land for common purposes. This application has been entertained and an order has been passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation dated 23/5/1996 directing that a portion of the bachat land be given to the 2nd respondent. The writ petition filed by the present appellant Gram Panchayat has been dismissed. Hence the present appeal has been filed before us.
(3.)Rule 18 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949 prescribes that an application under Section 42shall be made within six months of the date of the order against which it is filed. Under the 2nd proviso to that Rule, there is a power to admit the application after the period of limitation, which requires the applicant to satisfy the authorities that he has sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. The 2nd respondent has relied upon a decision of the full bench of the Punjab and Haryana High court in the case of Jagtar Singh v. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings. In this decision the High court had held that the period prescribed under Rule 18 will apply only in respect of orders which are passed under the Act and will have no application to a scheme which is framed or repartition which has been effected under the Act.
(2.)The appellant is the Gram Panchayat of Village Kakran. In consolidation proceedings which took place in the year 1956 under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, the net entitlement of Sangha Singh, father of the 2nd respondent was held to be of the value of 152-14-9 pai and after making deduction of the value 3-4-3 pai for common purposes, he was allotted 149-10-6 pai of land. Resolution No. 120 which is dated 16/6/1956 is under Section 20 of the Act confirming the consolidation scheme. Prior to such confirmation, under Section 19 the draft scheme is required to be published and objections have to be invited which have to be considered within the time prescribed in Section 19. Thereafter under Section 20, after considering the objections, the final scheme has to be confirmed. Under Section 21 the Consolidation Officer is required to carry out repartition in accordance with the scheme of consolidation in the manner set out therein. Under Ss. (2 of Section 21 any person aggrieved by repartition is entitled to file a written objection within 15 days of the publication before the Consolidation Officer. There are further provisions for appeal under Section 21. Under Section 42, power is given to the State government to call for, inter alia, any scheme prepared or confirmed or repartition made by any officer under the Act for the purpose of examining legality or propriety thereof. The section provides that this can be done by the State government at any time. In the present case no objections under Section 21 appear to have been filed by the father of the 2nd respondent who was then alive. However, after 40 years, in the year 1996 the 2nd respondent made an application under Section 42 for reopening the repartition, on the ground that there should not have been any deduction from his land for common purposes. This application has been entertained and an order has been passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation dated 23/5/1996 directing that a portion of the bachat land be given to the 2nd respondent. The writ petition filed by the present appellant Gram Panchayat has been dismissed. Hence the present appeal has been filed before us.
(3.)Rule 18 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949 prescribes that an application under Section 42shall be made within six months of the date of the order against which it is filed. Under the 2nd proviso to that Rule, there is a power to admit the application after the period of limitation, which requires the applicant to satisfy the authorities that he has sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. The 2nd respondent has relied upon a decision of the full bench of the Punjab and Haryana High court in the case of Jagtar Singh v. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings. In this decision the High court had held that the period prescribed under Rule 18 will apply only in respect of orders which are passed under the Act and will have no application to a scheme which is framed or repartition which has been effected under the Act.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.