Hemant Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS order shall dispose of aforementioned two writ petitions i.e. C.W.P. No. 16062 of 1998 and C.W.P. No. 14386 of 1996, as the challenge in both the writ petitions is to an order passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, on 14.09.1995 finding that the deficiency in the allotment of land to respondent No. 3 should be made good from the bachat land. After the said order, the Tehsildar -cum -Consolidation Officer has passed an order giving 1 kanal of land out of Jumla Mustarka Malkan land to respondent No. 3. However, for facility of reference the facts are being taken up from C.W.P. No. 16062 of 1998. The petitioners claim that they are right -holders and co -sharers in Jumla Mustarka Malkan land. The consolidation scheme contemplated that a right -holder having 10 standard kanals will bear shortage/excess up to 5 standard marlas, whereas an owner of more than 10 standard kanals will bear shortage/excess to the extent of 10 standard marlas. It is pointed out that one right -holder of the village namely Uttam Singh son of Bhag Singh (maternal grand -father of respondent No. 3) raised certain objections claiming deficiency in the land allotted to him during the process of consolidation. On 17.10.1962, the objections raised by Uttam Singh, predecessor -in -interest of respondent No. 3, were decided by the Settlement Officer vide order (Annexure P -2) holding that he has been given share correctly. No challenge was made to the said order, but it was in the year 1995 after almost 33 years of the order being passed, respondent No. 3 filed a petition under Section 42 of East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act'). The Additional Director, Consolidation in its order dated 14.09.1995 (Annexure P -4) found that 5 marlas of land was given less to the predecessor -in -interest of respondent No. 3, which is against the provisions of the scheme and, thus, the shortage to the extent of one kanal was ordered to be made good from bachat land.
(2.) IT may be noticed that in the year 1962, two orders were passed by the Settlement Officer i.e. on 24.08.1962 and on 17.10.1962. In the order dated 17.10.1962, land measuring 8 kanals was excluded from the holdings of Uttam Singh, but was given 7 kanals 15 marlas. It is the said shortage, which was ordered to be made good by the Consolidation Officer. Such order was given effect by the Consolidation Officer on 25.07.1996 (Annexure P -5). Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that a specific order was passed by the Consolidation Officer on 17.10.1962 declining claim of the Uttam Singh, predecessor in interest of Respondent No. 3. If respondent No. 3 or his predecessor -in -interest were aggrieved against the said order, he should have taken recourse to the remedy provided under the Act But once an order has been allowed to attain finality, the same could not be disputed by way of a petition under Section 42 of the Act after more than 33 years. Since an order was passed, respondent No. 3 has to avail the remedy against such order in appropriate proceedings within a reasonable time of the passing of the order and that he cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the State Government under Section 42 of the Act at his own will.
(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and find merit in the argument raised. Uttam Singh, predecessor -in -interest of respondent No. 3, was an objector, whose objections were decided by the Consolidation Officer on 17.10.1962. Once the objections were decided, Uttam Singh had to avail the remedy of appeal and/or revision or any other remedy as is available to him against such order, but he cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the State Government under Section 42 of the Act after almost 33 years. We find that invocation of jurisdiction of the Additional Director, Consolidation after allowing the order dated 17.10.1962 to attain finality is not sustainable in law. The Additional Director could not set aside the order under the garb of mistake in such order. Even if there was a mistake, Uttam Singh had to avail the remedy against such order. In view of the above, we find that the order dated 14.09.1995 (Annexure P -4) to make good the deficiency and the order dated 25.07.1996 (Annexure P -5) making good the deficiency are not legal. Consequently, while disposing of both the writ petitions, both the orders i.e. dated 14.09.1995 and 25.07.1996 are set aside.;