- (1.) The judgment disposed of Civil Writ Petition No. 15301 of 1992 and Civil Writ Petition No. 5146 of 1993. A challenge has been made to the Consolidation schemes for village Atela Khurd, Had Bast No. 87, and village road Had Bast No. 52, District Bhiwani, on identical grounds. At the time the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner's submitted that he would address arguments of Civil Writ Petition No. 15301 of 1992 and the same be treated in the connected writ petition.
(2.) A reference to brief facts is necessary to appreciate the submissions made at the Bar :- The East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short, the Act) was enacted for consolidation of Agricultural holdings and assignment of reservation of land for common purposes of villages. Notification under sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act is issued by the State Government expressing its intention of publishing a scheme for consolidation of holdings in any estate of group of estates. In Civil Writ Petition No. 153012 of 1992, notification under Section 14(1) was published in the Government Gazette on March 21,1989. Proclamation was made in the village on May 25, 1989. Advisory Committee was constituted for preparation of the draft scheme. The draft scheme was duly published. The right holders filed 85 objections to the draft scheme before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation of Holdings. These were disposed of by him in accordance with the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949 (for short, the Rules). The scheme was approved on February 13, 1992. It was duly published in the manner prescribed. The re- partition proceedings under Section 21(1) of the Act were completed on October 8, 1992 by the Consolidation Officer. Demarcation of the new holdings could not take place for want of cooperation of some of the rightholders. After the demarcation is made under Section 21(2) of the Act, the aggrieved person has got right of appeals under sub-sections (3) and (4) of the Section 21 of the Act.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners made the following submissions :- (i) Declaration under sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act was not published in the manner prescribed. (ii) Rules 4 and 5 of the Rules were not complied with.;