PRITAM SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Single Judge, vide orders dated October 15, 1999, allowed Civil Writ Petition No. 3585 of 1999, giving rise to this appeal filed under clause X of the Letters Patent, on the basis of law, as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat, Kakran v. The Additional Director of Consolidation and another, JT 1997(8) SC 430 : 1997(4) RCR(Civil) 498 (SC), Gram Panchayat Nurpur v. State of Punjab and others, 1997(1) PLJ 268 : 1997(30 RCR(Civil) 47 (SC) and Gram Panchayat, Village Sidh v. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab and others, 1997(1) PLJ 313 : 1997(3) RCR(Civil) 491 (SC), yet, in our considered view, on the strength of peculiar facts of the present case, as would be enumerated hereinafter, the writ deserves to be dismissed. We are informed, during the course of arguments and which fact besides being borne out from the records of writ petition, also stands admitted, that the counsel then representing the petitioners made an application for withdrawing from the case having no instructions. When the application was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, the counsel simply walked out of the Court. Primarily, it appears to us that it is for this precise reason that the facts, which had a great bearing on ultimate fate of the writ petition, could not be canvassed before the learned Single Judge. In the backdrop of what has been said above, it becomes almost essential to give detailed facts culminating into filing of original lis (Civil Writ Petition No. 3585 of 1999). Reference to the parties in this appeal is being made as per original lis.

(2.) THREE writ petitioners, namely, Joginder Singh, Gajan Singh and Som Nath, claiming themselves to be belonging to Harijan Community of Village Jago Chanarthal, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib, pleaded a vested right in them to take one-third land of respondent-Gram Panchayat on lease by virtue of Rule 6(a) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 1964 Rules). They then pleaded that the respondents 3 to 24, appellants-herein, alleging themselves as cosharers of village Jago Chanarthal, had filed a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Consolidation Act') after a lapse of 30 years of the completion of consolidation proceeding in the village. They challenged the ownership of Gram Panchayat and succeeded in their endeavour as vide orders dated June 3, 1996, Annexure P-1, the said petition was allowed. It is then pleaded that neither the petitioners nor any member belonging to Harijan Community was at all impleaded as party-respondent before the authorities under the Consolidation Act, even though they were to be directly affected of any order that might have been passed. It was further their case that the land, as per revenue record, is owned by Nagar Panchayat Deh and, therefore, the Additional Director, Consolidation, had no jurisdiction whatsoever to go into the question as to whether the same was shamlat-deh i.e., belonging to the Gram Panchayat, or not and that this question of title could only be decided by the authorities under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short Rs.1961 Act'). This order of the Additional Director, Consolidation was challenged by the Gram Panchayat through CWP No. 9162 of 1996 which was dismissed by Division Bench of this Court on July 3, 1996 and Special Leave Petition bearing No. 10509 of 1996 also met with the same fate. It was further pleaded that order passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation, Annexure P-1, was non est, void and beyond the competence and jurisdiction of the said respondent. With a view to buttress their right of getting the land belonging to Gram Panchayat (shamlat deh) on lease, they further pleaded that petitioner No. 1 had taken 130 kanals 5 marlas of land on October 14, 1998 and in similar manner, petitioner No. 2 had taken 63 kanals 3 marlas of land on lease from Gram Panchayat on the same day for a period of one year.

(3.) THE pertinent question that, thus, arises in this case is as to whether order, Annexure P-1, having attained finality through successive petitions before the High Court, resulting into order of dismissal upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court, both by Gram Panchayat and its tenants, could be reopened by those, who came into possession of land by virtue of interim orders passed during the pendency of litigation when the main case, in which the said orders were passed, was ultimately dismissed. Before we may, however, focus our attention on the crucial issue, framed above, we would hasten to add that whereas petitioners 1 and 2 came into possession of the land on the dint of interim orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, petitioner No. 3 is brother of Darshan Singh, who was himself writ petitioner in CWP No. 10113 of 1996. These facts are not denied either in the pleadings or during the course of arguments as also that but for the Gram Panchayat challenging order, Annexure P-1, and its fate upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reference of no other litigation, as detailed above, was given in the writ.