- (1.) CHALLENGE in the present writ petition is to the orders dated 20.10.1994 (Annexures P -1 & P -2) passed by respondent No.1 Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, on the separate petitions filed by respondent Nos.2 to 8 and the petitioners under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act') respectively. The petitioners and the private respondents are successors -ininterest of Khushala. The petitioners are through his son Nand Singh, whereas respondent Nos.2 to 8 are through his another son Shyam. The consolidation of the village was completed in the year 1951. Such proceedings were finalized on the basis of Resolution dated 02.07.1951 (Annexure P -7) in respect of respondent Nos.2 to 8 and Resolution dated 05.07.1951 (Annexure P -8) in respect of the petitioners. The petitioners thereafter sought partition of the land on the basis of the revenue records prepared soon after the consolidation. But vide order dated 05.11.1964 (Annexure R -2/2), the partition proceedings were consigned to await the decision on the question of title from the Civil Court. The objection that dispute regarding question of title arises, was raised by respondent Nos.2 to 8 or their predecessors -in -interest. No proceedings were initiated by any of the parties before the Civil Court soon thereafter except a suit was filed by respondent Nos.2 to 8 claiming declaration in respect of land in question in the year 1991.
(2.) DURING the course of hearing today, Mr. Singla has produced a certified copy of the order dated 07.06.1996, whereby an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC for withdrawal of the above said suit on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit, was accepted observing that the present suit is barred under Section 44 of the Act.
(3.) THE parties to the present writ petition have filed separate petitions under Section 42 of the Act, and have been dealt with separately. In the petition filed by the respondents herein, it has been pleaded that share of Puran Singh, the unheard brother of Ralla Singh, predecessor -in -interest of the respondents herein, should have been allotted separate khata and in the alternative the share of Ralla Singh should be increased by adding to his personal valuation of his land. The argument raised was that the land of Puran Singh, which was included in his khata should be corrected in the present khewat or in the alternative, land of Puran Singh, which was included in the khata of Ralla Singh, Kehru and Mehru, predecessors -ininterest of the petitioners, be ordered to be separated from the khata and a separate khata be carved out. While considering the said argument, the learned Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, observed that increase in the share of Ralla Singh is necessary and that deficiency of 17.15 ordinary area is required to be made good. However, the petitioner under Section 42 of the Act filed by the petitioners was declined for the reason that the petitioners cannot challenge the land taken with the consent of their ancestors. Before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, has no right to decide the question of title particularly in respect of share of Puran Singh, the un -heard brother of Ralla Singh, Kehru and Mehru. The Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, in exercise of Section 42 of the Act has the power to correct only mistakes in the consolidation scheme, but has no right to deal with the disputed question of title. Reference is made to a Full Bench judgment of this Court in CWP No.2318 of 2002 titled as "Parkash Singh and others Vs. Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab and others" decided on 08.11.2013, wherein it has been held to the following effect: "We, therefore, hold that: - (a) Consolidation authorities, are tribunals of limited jurisdiction; (b) Consolidation authorities exercise powers of revenue officers, under the 1887 Act, a power to record and update fiscal entries and prepare record of rights; (c) but are not empowered to decide a question of title or vest/divest a party of its title; (d) the only authority empowered to determine a question, whether the land is "Shamilat Deh", between a Gram Panchayat and a private individual was the Civil Court but after enactment of Sections 11, 13 and 13 -A of the 1961 Act, the Collector and; (e) if the land is "Jumla Mushtarka Malkan", an appropriate forum. As a necessary consequence an order passed by the Director Consolidation, under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act holding that the land in dispute vests or does not vest in a Gram Panchayat is an order Kumar Vimal passed on an illegal assumption or appropriation of jurisdiction rendering the exercise of powers by the Director Consolidation null and void in its inception and in its operation and at best an order passed by a tribunal of limited jurisdiction that is not binding on the proprietary or possessory rights of the Gram Panchayat or a private individual before a Court or a Tribunal statutorily empowered to decide such a dispute.";