Rajive Bhalla, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner, Gram Panchayat, prays for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the order, dated 12th July, 1984, passed by Respondent No. 1, namely; the Additional Director, Consolidation and Holdings, Punjab, Chandigarh.
(2.) MORE than three decades after consolidation proceedings concluded and without filing any appeal against the proceedings of repartition, the Respondents, approached the Additional Director, Consolidation, under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Consolidation Act'), with a prayer that as their land had been wrongly reflected as Shamlat Deh during the process of repartition, this error be rectified. The Additional Director, Consolidation vide order dated 12th July, 1984 held that revenue authorities had no jurisdiction to alter the ownership of the land to the name of the Gram Panchayat after consolidation. Mutation No. 338, sanctioned by the revenue authorities was, therefore, set aside and the matter was remanded to the Consolidation Officer to distribute land measuring 257 Bighas and 3 Biswas amongst the right holders. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Director, Consolidation, has no jurisdiction to set aside a mutation entered and sanctioned by revenue authorities. The Additional Director, Consolidation can only deal with matters, decided during the proceedings of consolidation. It is further submitted that the Additional Director has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the question, whether land vests or does not so vest in a Gram Panchayat. This question can only be decided by the Collector, exercising powers under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961. Reliance in this regard is placed upon two Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Gram Panchayat Village Sidh, v. Additional Director, Consolidaton of Holdings, Punjab and Ors., 1997 (l) PLJ 313 and Gram Panchayat, Nurpur v. State of Punjab and Ors., 1997 (l) PLJ 268.
(3.) COUNSEL for the Respondents, however, submits that the revenue record, preceding consolidation, namely; the jamabandi for the year 1944 -45, records the Respondents as owner in possession. An error by the revenue authorities by pre -fixing the word "Shamlat" before their names was rightly rectified by the Additional Director, Consolidation. It is submitted that Section 42 of the Consolidation Act, empowers the Additional Director to correct any error in the scheme or in re -partition proceedings. As the impunged order does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or of law, the instant petition be dismissed.;