DAYA CHAUDHARY,J - (1.) THE petitioner-Gram Panchayat has filed the present writ petition for quashing of order dated November 18, 1981 (Annexure P-1) and order dated April 24, 1984 (Annexure P-2) passed by Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab (respondent No. 1).
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 3 Bant Singh and Respondent No. 4 Waryam Singh filed an application under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter called 'the Act of 1948') before respondent No. 1, which was allowed vide order dated November 18, 1981. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced as under : "This petition is aimed to secure partition of 912 K-0 M which is lying in Bachat in the village. It is stated that the Panchayat now wants to take possession of this area from the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners has, however, stated before me that he was not insisting on the division of entire 912 K-0 M area amongst various co-sharers. He has now reduced his demand to the division of 323 K-1 M ordinary which is lying in Bachat in the village after excluding the area of the Panchayat farm and the area reserved for other common purposes. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since this area which was shown as Bachat and which originally vested in Jumla Mushtarka Malkan had come into existence as a result of excessive pro-rata deduction imposed upon various right-holders, it would be proper if this area is given back to the various co-sharers in the village according to their entitlement." The petitioner-Gram Panchayat raised an objection before respondent No. 1 on the ground that order Annexure P-1 was virtually an ex parte order as the same was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing, as the person representing the Gram Panchayat was not authorized by the Panchayat. The claim of the Gram Panchayat was rejected vide order Annexure P-2, which is under challenge in the present writ petition.
(3.) THE sole argument of Mr. S.S. Salar, learned counsel for the petitioner- Gram Panchayat, is that the Director had no jurisdiction to go into the question whether the land in dispute was Shamlat Deh, Gram Panchayat or proprietors of the village and had wrongly decided by passing orders Annexures P-1 and P-2. In support of his contention, Mr. Salar has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Gram Panchayat, Nurpur v. State of Punjab and others, 1997(3) RCR(Civil) 47 : (1998)8 Supreme Court Cases 672 and argued that the case of the petitioner Gram Panchayat is fully covered by this judgment. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under : "We are of the view that the Additional Director, Consolidation, had no authority to go into the question whether the land in dispute was shamlat deh or not. This is a question which could only be decided by the authorities under the Regulation Act. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Additional Director, Consolidation and also the order of the High Court and send the matter before the Collector, Kapurthala for decision in accordance with law under the Regulation Act. We make it clear that the Collector shall decide the matter afresh in accordance with law irrespective of the orders passed by the Consolidation authorities in this respect. We direct the Collector to decide the matter within two months of the receipt of this order." ;