G.S. Singhvi, J. - (1.) This is an appeal against order dated 2.12.1992 passed by the learned Single Judge vide which he dismissed C.W.P. No. 9100 of 1987 filed by the appellant for quashing orders dated 27.7.1984, 12.10.1984, 14.11.1987 and 4.9.1987 passed by the authorities constituted under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short, 'the Act), as applicable to the State of Haryana.
(2.) The facts of the case are that Consolidation Scheme for village Matenhail, Hadbast No. 141, Tehsil Jhajjar, District Rohtak (now District Jhajjar) was framed in the year 1962. Shri Dariya Singh (respondent No.2 in the writ petition) filed an application under Sec. 42 of the Act for correction of the scheme by asserting that Khasra No.562 (old Khasra No.2756) belonged to him and his family members and the names of Des Ram etc. had been wrongly recorded in the column of ownership. On being directed by the Additional Director, Consolidation. Consolidation Officer, Rohtak made spot inspection and recorded the following observations: - "On seeing the record it was found that plot No. 562 of which the previous khasra No. 2756 has been reserved in the Consolidation Scheme at page 250 in the name of Mahanta son of Udmi, jugti, Daryao Singh, Attar Singh, Manphool sons of Khem Chand 1/2 share and Nishan Tulsi son of Surja half share." XX XX This position continues till jamabandi for the year 1977 -78. In this jamabandi, the entry about Jeewan, Net Ram Des Raj, Maaman in equal share of 1/5 is wrong, when in the Missal Haqiat and Jamabandi for the year 1967 -78, the names of Manphool etc. were required. This mistake can be got corrected through Fard Badar. The jamabandi for the year 1951 -52 and Khatauni Istemal before consolidation operation was seen. In that the total area in Khewat No. 450 and Khasra nos. 2755, 2756 2/(2 -10)2/(5 -18) 2957, 2958 is 10B -1B. This is joint 1 -2 (0 -3) Khewat of 720 shares in which Tehri etc. entered in Khewat No. 423 -90 shares, Dhara etc. in Khewat No. 417 -30 shares, Balwant etc. Khewat No. 418 -30 share, Hari Singh Khewat No.421 -75 shares, Smt. Rattan Kaur, Khewat No.422 -75 shares, Jugli Ram Khewat No.428 -30 shares, Deep Chand etc. Khewat No.429 -30 shares, Ram Sarup Khewat No. 431 -45 shares, Beg Raj etc. Khewat No.444 -45 shares, Natha etc. Khewat No.447 -135 shares, Partap etc. Khewat No. 432 -45 shares and Dhir Singh etc. Khewat No.438 -90 shares are owners. In this Khewat Tulsi Ram and his sons Des Ram etc. are nowhere shown as owners and Nanhta son of Udmi is also not the owner. The appellant has produced one sale deed by which he has purchased land measuring 0 -7 out of 1/16th part of former Khewat No. 450. In these numbers, the area of khasra Nos. 2757 and 2756 is OB -5B and out of this, the share of the applicant's area conies to OB -6B. Out of the other Khasra Nos. 2957 and 2958 his share of the area comes to only OB -B -1. The appellant states that he had taken possession of the area only in Khasra Nos. 2755 and 2756. In the presence of the aforementioned right holders, spot inspection of plot No.562 was done. All the right -holders who have attended corroborate this fact that the appellant has been in possession of this plot from the beginning after the consolidation proceedings and even now, they are in possession. In the previous record also, the opposite party Tulsi Ram or his sons Des Raj etc. and Smt. Chhote etc. and Nanhta are not the owners. It appears that their names have been written in the scheme by mistake. The correction is called for. The report be submitted before the Additional Director, Consolidation Haryana." Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Chief Executive Officer, Haryana Khadi and Village industries Board, Panchkula to whom powers of the State Government under Sec. 42 of the Act had been delegated. After hearing the parties, the officer concerned allowed the application of Dariya Singh vide order dated 27.7.1984. The extracts of that order are reproduced below : - "I have heard counsel for both the parties and have also examined the relevant record. The persons mentioned at Sr.No.3 above are owners of Khasra No. 2756 of "which plot No.562 is a part. Only those right -holders who are original share -holders of khasra No.2756 should be share -holders of plot No.562. The learned Counsel for the respondents argued that the respondents are also share -holders of plot No. 562. After hearing the parties and examining the relevant record I have come to the conclusion that only the persons mentioned at Sr. No. 3 above should be shareholders of plot -No. 562. The case is remanded to the consolidation officer, Rohtak with the direction that the persons mentioned at Sr. No. 3 be made share -holders of plot No.562 and other persons mentioned at Sr. Nos. 1 and 2 and 4 above should be deleted from the partnership of plot No. 562. If these persons who are deleted from the partnership of plot No.562 are 10 be made share -holders then they may be made share -holder in any other land where they are share -holders."
(3.) In compliance of the direction given by the Chief Executive Officer, Consolidation Officer, Rohtak passed order dated 12.10.1984 for making necessary amendments in the scheme. The relevant extracts of that order are also reproduced below: - "Record examined and appellants heard. Das Ram and Manphool etc. have been served through notice for today's appearance. But they have not turned up. Hence ex parte proceedings is taken against them. After examining the record, the ownership of plot No. 562 according to Jamabandi for the year 1963 -64 was as under: - "Des Ram etc. 1/2 Udmi etc. 1/5th Manphool etc. 1/5th and Smt. Chotan etc. 1/10th and is entered in the jainabandi for the year 1977 -78, Des Ram etc. 1/2, Jiwan etc. 1/5th Manphool etc. 1/5th, Manphool etc. 1/10th. The correction of the share of Manphool etc. 1/10th has been made vide Farad Baddar No.2 and of Smt. Chhottan But the correction of Jiwan etc, 1/5th has not been made. This correction is also to be made through Farad Baddar by making ownership of Jugti Ram etc. 1/5th share. And since been given to Manphool etc. hence now the ownership entry of plot No.562 is left as Des Ram etc. 1/2, Manphool etc. 2/5th and Smt. Chhoten etc. 1/10, According to the remand order this entire plot has been given to Manphool etc. and in lieu thereof, area is to be withdrawn from Manphool etc. and is to be given to the parties, adjoining to Chhottan etc. Killa out of which Chhotan etc. are given area. But the Kurrah of the Des Raj etc. is in killa No. 193/8 -13 -4 and there is no area of appellant alongwith this area Kurrah is for of place and there is no Bachat Land alongwith this land hence under compulsion separate land from the Kurrah amendments have been made because none is present from Des Ram etc. and Chhottan etc. hence they may be informed regarding the amendments: - JUDGEMENT_130_LAWS(P&H)9_2001.htm After making the above amendments the remand case is accepted. The file may be consigned to record room after completion.";