- (1.) This is an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent from the judgment and order, dated December 16, 1966, of a learned Single Judge, partly setting aside the order, dated February 22, 1964 of the Additional Director of Consolidation of Holdings, respondent 34, which order had maintained the order, dated December 25, 1963, of the Settlement Officer, respondent 33, who had held that a question of title having arisen before him between the parties, there was to be no partition of the land of the parties in consolidation proceedings in their village.
(2.) The learned Single Judge has proceeded on a consideration that with regard to part of the land, to which the orders of respondents 33 and 34 concerned, no question of title arises. So only partly there has been interference with the order of respondent 34.
(3.) This matter was, considered at length by a Full Bench of the Court in Ajit Singh v. Subaghan, Letters Patent Appeal No. 354 of 1965, decided on March 19, 1969. The Full Bench held :- (a) that under Section 117 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 , in spite of Section 16-A of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (East Punjab Act 50 of 1948), a decision with regard to whether a partition should or should not be effected of joint land during consolidation could be the subject-matter of a suit in a civil Court during the pendency of consolidation of holdings and also after the completion of the same, and that the operative part of Section 16-A of the Act would be subject to the decision of the civil Court in a suit under Section 117 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 ; (b) that in a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution a question of title cannot be decided by this Court arising, in relation to a claim for partition of a joint holding during consolidation of holdings because that would mean by passing the provisions of Section 117 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 ; and (c) that the only matter which can be considered in such a petition under Articles 226 and 227 is whether the Director or the Additional Director of Consolidation of Holding has made his order within jurisdiction. Once he has made his order within jurisdiction, there can be no interference with his orders under Articles 226 and 227, though the party aggrieved by the Order may succeed in obtaining relief against it in a suit under Section 117 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 .;