- (1.) The petitioners, who are proprietors in village Kurranganwali, Tehsil Sirsa, district Hissar (now district Sirsa), have impugned the pro rata cut made from their holdings during the consolidation operations for meeting the demand for land for common purposes of the village including the land allotted for residential purposes of non-proprietors of the village, inter alia, on the ground that the said cut had been imposed in violation of the clear mandate of the provisions of rule 16(ii) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949 in that though Shamilat Deh land was available with the Panchayat in more than the requisite quantity, yet the pro rata cut was imposed on the proprietors and land was taken from their holdings for the common purposes in question.
(2.) In the return filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 (State of Haryana and the Consolidation Officer, respectively), it has been admitted in paras 8 and 12 thereof that prior to the consolidation operations in the village, the Gram Panchayat owned an area of 850 standard Kanals and 15 Marlas, to which an area of 89 standard Kanals stood added in lieu of the land of the Gram Panchayat which fell within the Phirni and allotted in the form of residential plots to proprietors and non-proprietors of the village (Panchayat like any other owner being entitled under the consolidation scheme to the allotment of an area equal to twice its area utilized for residential plots for other persons whether proprietors or non-proprietors agrarian labourers including Harijans) and thus the total land that the Gram Panchayat came to own in the village swelled to 939 standard Kanals and 15 Marlas; that out of the said area an area of 256 standard Kanals and 8 Marlas was reserved for the income of the said Gram Panchayat, leaving with the Gram Panchayat an area of 683 standard Kanals and 7 Marlas which was allotted to it during the repartition carried out in the village in pursuance of the consolidation scheme; that an area of 161 standard Kanals and 1 Marla was taken out from the common pool for common purposes of the village by imposing a pro rata cut on the holdings of the individual rightholders; that out of the said area only 48 standard Kanals and 14 Marlas was actually utilized for various common purposes; and that the remaining area of 112 standard Kanals and 7 Marlas was ordered to be redistributed pro rata amongst the rightholders concerned under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, on 14.7.1973 by the Assistant Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Rohtak.
(3.) The provisions of rule 16(ii) of the Rules are in the following terms : "16(ii) In an estate or estates where during consolidation proceedings there is no Shamlat Deh land or such land is considered inadequate land shall be reserved for the village Panchayat and for other common purposes, under Section 18(c) of the Act, out of the common pool of the village at a scale prescribed by Government from time to time. Proprietary rights in respect of land so reserved (except the area reserved for the extension of Abadi proprietors and non-proprietors) shall vest in the proprietary body of the estate or estates concerned and it shall be entered in the column of ownership of record of rights as Jumla Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Arazi Hasab Rasad Raqba). The management of such land shall be done by the Panchayat of the estate or estates concerned on behalf of the village proprietary body and the Panchayat shall have the right to utilise the income derived from the land so reserved for the common needs and the benefits of the estate concerned." A perusal of the aforesaid provisions of rule 16(ii) of the Rules would show that it is only when either there was no Shamilat Deh land available with the Gram Panchayat or it was inadequate to meet the requirement of the village Panchayat and the demand for land required for other common purposes including the land for allotment as residential plots to non-proprietor agrarian labourers including Harijans that the land could be taken from the holdings of the proprietors by imposing a pro rata cut. In the present case, as already observed, land available with the Panchayat after deducting the land reserved for its income was much more than required to meet the requirement of the land for common purposes and for the residential plots of the non-proprietors agrarian labourers including Harijans.;