- (1.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to order passed by the learned Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab (Annexure P/1) in exercise of powers under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 cancelling the area reserved for Cha-rand and the Consolidation Scheme in the village be amended accordingly. The present writ petition has been preferred by Gram Panchayat of village Bakhtari pointing out that the consolidation was completed prior to 1961 and the land in dispute vested in Gram Panchayat in terms of mutation No. 374. It was on 23rd October, 1989 the private respondents No. 2 to 7 submitted a petition under Section 42 of the Act, which was withdrawn on 2nd January, 1990. Thereafter, another petition was filed on 9th April, 1990 which has been allowed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab vide order dated 21st May, 1990 the order impugned in the present writ petition. It is pointed out that Khatauni Istemal prepared by the Consolidation Authority according to jamabandis for the year 1956-57 shows that the land allotted in lieu of the land before consolidation. The disputed land before and after consolidation was depicted as "Shamlat deh Hasab Hissas Mandarja Shajra Nasab". It is thus contended that the same was not a bachat land and, thus, cannot be partitioned amongst the proprietors of village.
(2.) The challenge to the order is on the ground that respondents No. 2 to 7 have invoked jurisdiction of Additional Director after 34 years of the finalization of partition process and that Additional Director has no jurisdiction to order partition and that too after long lapse of time. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of hearing that power under Section 42 of the Act can be exercised at any time but such power is restricted to correction of mistake but not to alter the scheme at any point of time. It is contended that in terms of jamabandis for the year 1961-62, land vests in Gram Panchayat and, thus, Additional Director cannot exercise jurisdiction to oust certain land vested with the Gram Panchayat in terms of the Consolidation Scheme. Reference is made to the judgment dated 9th September, 2013 passed by Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P. No. 11383 of 1990 Gram Panchayat Village Sadhoheri, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala v. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab and others wherein, somewhat in similar circumstances, the jurisdiction of Additional Director after long lapse of time was found to be without jurisdiction.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents referred to the scheme and contended that it is a bachat land and, thus, it was a mistake apparent which has been corrected by order impugned in the writ petition.;