A.L. Bahri, J. - (1.) Gurdeep Singh and others, petitioners, claimed themselves to be right-holders in village Naraingarh, Tehsil and District Faridkot, pray in this petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution, for a writ of certiorari quashing notification Annexure P-4, dated July 26,1991, issued under section 14 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act of 1948 (hereinafter called the Act) for framing the consolidation scheme for village Naraingarh District Faridkot and 10 other villages of District Hoshiarpur. This petition only relates to village Naraingarh. It is alleged that the entire village once belonged to Raja Harinder Singh. A big chunk of land of village in the revenue record was shown in the name of Narinder Singh. Other land was in possession of the tenants. In 1956 consolidation proceedings in the village were started and ultimately completed. Further reference has been made to the disputes pending between some of the tenants in the village with regard to their becoming as proprietors of the land of Narinder Singh aforesaid. After the death of Narinder Singh a dispute arose about his inheritance between several persons, one of them being Kashmira Singh. On the death of Kashmira Singh, Sukhchain Singh etc. made a claim. There were several alienations made by the legal heirs aforesaid and the civil suits are pending. Further details are not considered necessary as given in the present petition. The stand of the petitioners is that there is no fragmentation as far as the blocks of the tenants in the village is concerned. Otherwise the remaining land belonged to Raja Harinder Singh and even Narinder Singh was his representative. Thus there was no fragmentation of the blocks of the owner and fresh consolidation proceedings were not contemplated. When the matter came up before the motion Bench, reference was made to the decision of this Court in Mahant Som Dass v. The State of Punjab and another, 1966 P.L.R. 813. It was alleged that since there was no change in the ownership of the land in the village fresh consolidation was not called for. Notice of motion was issued.
(2.) The writ petition has been contested by the official as well as private respondents. Written statement has been filed by the private respondents which has been adopted by the official respondents. It has been brought out therein that even with respect to the block of Narinder Singh there arc now 68 proprietors and fresh consolidation is called for. After hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is made out. When earlier consolidation took place as is the allegation of the petitioners, 61 blocks were carved out, one for Narinder Singh and 2 to 59 for the tenants. One block was kept for passages and the other for water channels. Since several cases are pending with respect to claiming proprietory rights by some of the alleged tenants as well as with respect to declaration of surplus area of the owners as well as civil litigation with respect to inheritance of Narinder Singh aforesaid, it is not considered appropriate to comment in this petition, more so, when those parties are not present here. The fact remains that even in the case of Narinder Singh his block of land stands bifurcated and now there are 68 claimants as proprietors in the village. Since several of the tenants also claim to have become owners with respect to the land in their possession they would also fall in the category of proprietors, after such declarations having been granted by the authorities. Thus it cannot be said that after lapse of about 30 years no case for re-consolidation of the village is made. No doubt, as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Nirbhai Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, A.I.R. 1967 Pb. 362, it is only the block of the proprietors that are to be taken into consideration for the purposes of re-consolidation proceedings and not blocks of the tenants. Subsequently the matter came up before the Full Bench in Pala Singh v. The State of Punjab and another, 1968 P.L.R. 1002. That was a case where consolidation proceedings were started afresh after lapse of several years of the previous consolidation proceedings. A notification under section 14 of the Act was issued which was under challenge. It was observed that such an action was purely administrative and no provision of the Act provided for giving hearing to the villagers. It was observed as under:- "The matter of fragmentation can immediately be seen by the State Government from the annual record of rights and no further probe in the matter is ever called for. In so far as the question of better cultivation of lands is concerned, it is inherent in the very fact of the consolidation of holdings of right holder in the estate or estates concerned, because to cultivate his total holding at one two place is conducive to better cultivation than to cultivate his holdings scattered in fragments." It was further observed as under:- "All that it does is to proceed on a basic subsisting situation and to proceed to indicate its intention by a notification to make a scheme for consolidation of holdings, the obvious consequence of which is better cultivation of lands. After the issue of the notification all the other provisions of the statute clearly show that at every stage the right holders are consulted for any step taken towards consolidation of holdings or given a right of hearing in the shape of objections or appeals or an application under section 42 of the Act where their holdings are affected by repartition in consequence of consolidation."
(3.) The case of Som Dass was considered by the Full Bench and distinguished in para 7 of the judgment. In that case it was observed that since for a period of 5 years no objection was taken and the consolidation proceedings continued that itself negatived the claim that their village was in a case of fragmentation of holdings.;