GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing orders dated 11.08.1983, 05.07.1984 and 20.01.1987, passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Chandigarh and the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, respectively. Counsel for the petitioner -Gram Panchayat, submits that order dated 05.07.1984, passed by the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, is null and void as the petition, filed after 26 years, could not be entertained much less allowed in exercise of powers under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Consolidation Act'). It is further argued that even if it is presumed that there is an error in documents prepared during consolidation, the private respondents could not approach Consolidation authorities after 26 years and Consolidation authorities could not rectify revenue records which have been in existence for two and a half decades. The powers under Sections 42 and 43 -A of the Consolidation Act, can only be exercised, if the aggrieved party files an appropriate petition within reasonable time. A delay of over two and a half decades can, by no stretch of imagination, be said to be reasonable, so as to confer jurisdiction upon consolidation authorities, to rectify so called errors in the revenue record, prepared during consolidation. It is further submitted that order dated 05.07.1984 was passed without affecting valid service upon the Gram Panchayat. The order dated 20.01.1987, passed by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, holding that the Gram Panchayat cannot challenge the legality of order dated 05.07.1984, as it has participated in proceedings before the Consolidation Officer, is legally incorrect as mere participation, in proceedings before the Consolidation Officer would not estop the Gram Panchayat from pointing out that order dated 05.07.1984, is without jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the petition under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act has been filed without disclosing that the private respondents have been ordered to be evicted from the land in dispute, vide order dated 02.03.1981. The impugned orders that have been passed without granting an opportunity of hearing to the Gram Panchayat, without considering the delay of over two and a half decades and that the Consolidation authorities are functus officio after consolidation proceedings conclude, may be set aside.

(2.) COUNSEL for the private respondents, on the other hand, submits that a perusal of the Consolidation Act reveals that there is no limitation for filing a petition under Sections 42 or 43 -A of the Consolidation Act. The jamabandi, immediately preceding consolidation proceedings, records that private respondents are in possession of land, in dispute, as "Gair Marusian". The entry was not reflected in the revenue record, prepared during consolidation. The petitioner, therefore, filed a petition under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act for correction of this error. After perusal of the relevant revenue record, the Additional Director Consolidation and the Consolidation Officer have rightly ordered correction of the revenue record. The Director, Consolidation of Holdings, has rightly held that as the Gram Panchayat participated in proceedings before the Consolidation Officer, and has filed an appeal against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, the Gram Panchayat cannot challenge order dated 05.07.1984, passed by the Additional Director Consolidation. It is further submitted that no prejudice has been caused to the Gram Panchayat as Consolidation authorities have merely corrected the revenue record, so as to bring it, in accordance with the position existing prior to consolidation. It is submitted that the eviction order passed against the private respondents is a nullity, in view of the correction carried out in the revenue record.

(3.) DURING consolidation proceedings, Consolidation authorities, exercise the power of revenue officers, as conferred by the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, and upon conclusion of consolidation proceedings, are rendered functus officio, except to the extent of deciding pending appeals or petition filed under Sections 42 and 43 -A of the Consolidation Act. Sections 42 and 43 -A of the Consolidation Act read as follows: -