G.S.SANDHU,J - (1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against the order dated 24.6.2005, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that, respondent No. 1 Surjit Singh filed a petition before the Additional Director Consolidation, Punjab, against the repartition and scheme of consolidation of village Kallal Majra, and for distribution of land in the name of Jumla Malkan Rakba Hasab Rasad Khewat. The Additional Director Consolidation vide order dated 17.4.1995 accepted the petition and remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer, Mohali with the direction to redistribute the land of khewat No. 125 Khatauni Nos. 219 to 224 and 248 mentioned in the name of Jumla Malkan Rakba Hasab Rasad Khewat as per jamabandi for the year 1992-93. Mutation was entered in favour of respondents on the basis of above mentioned order dated 17.4.1995. In the mean time the tenants challenged the order dated 17.4.1995 before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 14717 of 1996. The Hon'ble High Court remanded the case to the competent authority for fresh decision vide order dated 6.7.1998. On remand by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, the case was heard by Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab before whom Surjit Singh son of Sampuran Singh and ten other persons, claiming to be right holders of village Kallaal Majra, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, had filed petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, against Gram Panchayat Kallaal Majra. The Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Chandigarh, vide order dated 29.11.1999, held that consolidation authorities had no jurisdiction to partition such joint land at this belated stage. He also observed that the land in dispute was created due to pro rata cut imposed during consolidation on all 50 proprietors of the village and that area was recorded as Jumla Malkan Rakba Harab Rasad Khewat in Misal Haqiat prepared at the time of Consolidation. Aggrieved by this order, respondents filed a CWP No. 2346 of 2001 in Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, which stood admitted and pending for decision. Mutation No. 1148 was entered on 28.3.2001 in pursuance of the order dated 29.11.1999 of the Additional Director Consolidation. In the CWP No. 2346 of 2001 the respondents had obtained the order of status quo with regard to possession. The AC-1st Grade vide order dated 7.8.2001 kept the mutation pending till the decision of CWP No. 2346 of 2001. On application by the petitioner, Gram Panchayat, the Hon'ble High Court on 26.11.2001 vacated the status quo. The Gram Panchayat moved an application on 22.10.2002 to the AC-1st, Amloh, for sanctioning the mutation in respect of the disputed land in favour of Gram Panchayat. But the AC-1st vide order dated 4.2.2003 rejected the application and held that the mutation would be sanctioned after the final decision of the writ petition. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before District Collector, Fatehgarh Sahib, who vide his order dated 15.6.2004, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of AC-1st. Not satisfied with this order, the petitioner further filed a revision petition before Commissioner (Appeals) Patiala Division, Patiala, who after hearing, vide his order dated 24.6.2005, dismissed the revision petition and upheld the order of District Collector as well as AC-1st. The Commissioner held that, in the absence of final order of Hon'ble High Court in the CWP No. 2346 of 2001, passing of any order in mutation No. 1148 was not possible rather it would boost the litigation between the parties. Still aggrieved by this order, petitioner, Gram Panchayat, filed this revision petition. During pendency of the present petition, the petitioner Gram Panchayat, filed CWP No. 18461 of 2005 in the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court with the prayer to restrain the respondents from alienating the suit land. The Hon'ble High Court disposed of the writ petition, vide order dated 24.8.2006, with the direction to this Court to decide the matter within two months from the date of receipt of order and till the time any decision is taken by this court, respondents have been restrained from alienating the suit land.
(3.) I have heard the counsel for the parties. Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the facts of the case. The counsel argued that as the order of the Additional Director, Consolidation on 17.4.1995 has become null and void in view of the later order dated 29.11.1999 of Additional Director, Consolidation, the mutation which had been sanctioned on the basis of order dated 17.4.1995 should be modified so as to restore the position existing prior to order dated 17.4.1995. The counsel for the respondent argued that the order dated 17.4.1995 of the Additional Director, Consolidation has attained finality and therefore, the order dated 29.11.1999 of Additional Director, Consolidation has no locus standi and the same has been challenged in the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court where writ petition in this regard stands admitted. The counsel further argued that the District Development and Panchayat Officer (DDPO) vide his order dated 21.5.1998 has ruled against the Gram Panchayat. This order of District Development and Panchayat Officer (DDPO) was considered in the appeal by Director, Panchayat and same was remanded to District Development and Panchayats Officer for fresh decision. The counsel for the respondent mentioned that against the order of Director Panchayats, another writ petition has been filed in the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court which stands admitted. The counsel concluded that the Lower Revenue Officers have rightly decided to keep the mutation pending till the final decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the petition filed against order of Additional Director, Consolidation dated 29.11.1999.;