LACHHMAN SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. ADDL DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS, PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
LAWS(P&H)-2008-8-212
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on August 18,2008

Lachhman Singh And Others Appellant
VERSUS
ADDL DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS, PUNJAB AND ANOTHER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The petitioners, impugn an order dated 21.2.1984 passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation and Holdings, Punjab, Chandigarh, whereby the order dated 28.11.1980 passed by his predecessor was recalled and it was directed that the original case would be decided on merits.
(2.) The petitioners, filed an application under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in the year 1978, with a prayer that though repartition had taken place on 20.6.1964, no area could be reserved for the income of the Gram Panchayat. During the pendency of the application, the Additional Director, Consolidation, directed the service of notice on the Sarpanch and the Panches. On 9.3.1979, Labh Singh, Member Panchayat appeared on behalf of respondent no.2 and opposed the application. The case was, however, adjourned to 11.5.1979. Thereafter, on 7.6.1979, as no one appeared on behalf of the Gram Panchayat, the Sarpanch was ordered to be summoned for the next date. The summons were allegedly received by the Gram Panchayat but no one put in appearance on behalf of the Gram Panchayat. The Additional Director, Consolidation, vide order dated 28.11.1980 accepted the petition filed by the petitioners and directed redistribution of land allotted to the Gram Panchayat amongst the right holders, in accordance with their share. The Gram Panchayat, thereafter, filed an application for recalling of the aforementioned order, which was allowed by the Additional Director, Consolidation, vide order dated 21.2.1984.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is illegal, as the Gram Panchayat was duly served. A Member Panchayat appeared on behalf of the Gram Panchayat and, therefore, the finding recorded by the Additional Director, Consolidation, that the Gram Panchayat was not granted an adequate opportunity, is factually incorrect. It is prayed that as the Additional Director, Consolidation, failed to peruse the original file, which clearly evidences service on the Gram Panchayat, the order dated 28.11.1980 should not have been set aside.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.