Out of the area that was available, 4598 Bigha 5 Biswa was given to the right holders whose lands were taken away and submerged in the river Yamuna due to river action, and the remaining land i.e. 9607 Bigha 5 Biswa was re partitioned among all the right holders of the three villages according to the provisions of Wajib ul Arz.
He directed that the Shamlat Deh will remain intact on a separate khewat and the change of possession which may have occurred in pursuance of the above provision of re partitioning Scheme shall stand quashed.
Accordingly the aforesaid order dated February 5, 1986 was quashed.
Therefore, the impugned order providing for partition of Shamlat lands in three villages was illegal.
The High Court found that the Shamlat lands had been divided in accordance with the entries in Wajab ul Arz and there was, therefore, numberquestion of title involved.
In obedience to the orders of the High Court the Scheme was framed on February 8, 1995.
It appears from the perusal of the judgment and order of the High Court that the appellants did number challenge at all the Scheme published on February 8, 1995.
In view of the change of companyrse of river Yamuna the lands were subjected to alluvion and delluvion and a provision was made in Douie Land Records Manual to the effect that the lands which were recovered shall be maintained as Shamlat Deh of all the three villages i.e. the land which is recovered after the loss of any Khewat or recovered as excess area.
Thereafter again when the Scheme was sought to be challenged by some of the land holders by filing another application under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act, the same was rejected by the Director Consolidation holding that the Scheme framed in accordance with the direction of the High Court and which was upheld by the High Court by its judgment and order dated November 16, 1995 companyld number be challenged under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act.
4938 of 1995 and the High Court by its order dated November 16, 1995 dismissed the said writ petition.
The High Court further gave a direction that the Consolidation Authorities shall proceed to frame a scheme with respect to the land subject to alluvion and delluvsion Shamlat Deh lands only in accordance with law keeping in view Shart Wazab ul Arz and the rights of the right holders.
The landowners and the occupancy tenants who have lost their land are entitled to retain the recovered area and cultivate the same.
The Consolidation Officer, therefore, gave certain directions as to the manner in which the order had to be implemented.
413 OF 2003 Dharam Veer Singh others Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others Respondents J U D G M E N T P. SINGH, J. This Writ Petition has been filed by some of the land holders who are affected by the Consolidation Scheme framed in regard to Shamlat Deh lands of the companycerned villages.
The Scheme published on February 8, 1995 and approved on May 5, 1995 had been challenged by some of the land owners before the High Court by filing a writ petition which was also dismissed on November 16, 1995 and the Scheme was upheld.
They, therefore, filed the instant writ petition which has been heard along with Civil Appeal No.646 of 2000.
He further directed that the possession existing prior to the implementation of the Consolidation Scheme shall be restored on the basis of the then existing entries in the revenue record.
The affidavit further gave the break up of the lands that remained for re partition in accordance with the provisions of the Wajab ul Arz.
In these circumstances resort to Section 42 of the Consolidation Act was number justified.
The said Scheme was approved in due companyrse but the same was again challenged before the High Court by some of the right holders.
The Consolidation Scheme came to be challenged by one Sultan Singh before the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal exercising powers under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1948 hereinafter referred to as the Consolidation Act .
Invoking his revisional jurisdiction it was companytended that re partition Scheme framed by the Consolidation Authorities in respect of the three villages in question was number in accordance with law.
The Director, therefore, dismissed the petition and upheld the Scheme.
The said Scheme came to be challenged by some of the right holders on various grounds before the High Court in C.W.P. No.
The writ petition was, however, dismissed by the High Court by its order dated November 16, 1995 and the second challenge to the Scheme did number be succeed.
Since that part of the Consolidation Scheme which dealt with the Shamlat Deh lands had been quashed, the Scheme was framed with a view to provide a Scheme for the Shamlat Deh lands of the three villages.
It was vehemently companytended on behalf of the respondents that in view of the order of this Court dated March 30, 2005 there was numberscope for further argument and the appeal should be dismissed on that ground alone.
B.P. SINGH S.H. KAPADIA New Delhi September 6, 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.
This order does number touch the other provisions of the Consolidation Scheme which was framed in the year 1966, and was companyfined to the framing of the Scheme in relation to Shamlat Deh lands only.
The Deputy Commissioner exercising the power of revisional authority under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act came to the companyclusion that the Scheme to the extent it provided for partition of Shamlat Deh was illegal and patently unjust and companyld number be allowed to stand.
The said scheme was challenged by some other proprietors and companysharers in Civil Writ Petition No.18310 of 1998 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
Thereafter the excess area of the Shamlat will be distributed according to the rate of assessment of Mr. Douie.
This clearly discloses that the Scheme framed related to the Shamlat Deh lands only which formed subject matter of the companyprehensive Consolidation Scheme framed in the year 1966.
148 of 1996 dated June 6, 1997 whereby he held that the aforesaid Scheme had been prepared in accordance with the direction of the High Court companytained in its judgment dated August 10, 1987 and upheld by an order of the High Court dated November 16, 1995.
The area available was 14205 Bigha 10 Biswa only, after excluding lands given to the State of Uttar Pradesh under the Dixit Award and the lands allotted to displaced persons as per the orders of the State Government.
Pursuant to the direction of the High Court the Scheme came to be framed and therefore it companyld number be said that the order dated August 18, 1970 attained finality having number been challenged.
3143 of 1986.
Accordingly the list of the khasra numbers as per value had been incorporated in the Scheme.
However, the Order of the Consolidation Officer dated February 5, 1986 was challenged before the High Court in C.W.P. No.
The fresh Scheme published on February 8, 1995 and the order of the Director Consolidation dated June 6, 1997 whereby he rejected a fresh application under Section 42 of the Act were challenged before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No.
Learned companynsel for the respondents submitted that this order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal was based on a misconception that there was any partitioning of the Shamlat Deh lands.
He held that the Consolidation Authorities had prepared the Consolidation Scheme in accordance with the direction of the High Court dated August 10, 1987.
The Director Consolidation, Haryana, dismissed the said case being Case No.148 of 1996 by his order dated June 6, 1997.
It was also observed that if provisions made in the Wazab ul Arz were applicable, the Consolidation Authorities must take that into account.
It is however number necessary for us to go into the companyrectness of that order.
Despite the order of status quo granted by this Court pending the appeal, the petitioners alleged that they were being displaced since they were number parties in the writ petition filed before the High Court.
Consequential changes required to be made in the Consolidation Scheme shall be made by the Consolidation Officer.
18310 of 1998.
In fact all the Shamlat Deh lands were recorded in a separate khewat of the three villages and this was done strictly in accordance with the provisions of Wazab ul Arz.
However, it was companytended that the said Scheme and the order of the Director Consolidation dated June 6, 1997 were in the teeth of the order dated August 18, 1970 passed under Section 42 of the Act, which had number been challenged at any stage.
The land owners and the occupancy tenants who had lost their land were held entitled to reclaim the recovered area for the purpose of cultivation and the land had to be distributed to them in proportion to the area which they had lost by reason of submersion of their lands with the change of companyrse of the river.
There were various objections raised such as that all the objections filed under Section 21 2 had number been disposed of and, therefore, change of possession was number justified.
In particular the petitioner challenged the propriety and legality of Paragraph 11 of Part VI of the Consolidation Scheme relating to the partition of Shamlat land of these three villages.
It was also sought to be urged that since questions of title were involved the matter companyld number be decided by the Consolidation Authorities and should have been decided under Section 117 of the Land Revenue Act.
The said writ petition was disposed of by the High Court by its judgment and order dated November 16, 1995.
After the dismissal of the writ petition filed by some of the right holders, another application was filed by Surinder Singh and some other right holders of the three villages in question under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act.
Apart from the aforesaid lands there was numberother Shamlat Deh lands in the year 1965 1966.
It was further stated that in the Scheme framed in 1966 there was numberprovision for the re partition of the above mentioned Shamlat lands and same were kept intact as Shamlat of all the three villages and was entered as Khewat No.1 of the Khatauni and final Jamabandi.
The Scheme was again challenged on the ground that the same was illegal being companytrary to the provisions of the Consolidation Act.
This companytention was repelled by the High Court holding that the aforesaid order was challenged at every stage and ultimately the High Court gave direction to decide the matter in the light of the entries companytained in Wajab ul Arz.
He, therefore, allowed the petition and quashed the provision of the re partition Scheme in so far as it related to partitioning of Shamlat Deh of these three villages.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The Scheme was again challenged, though on different grounds, in C.W.P. No.
The Shamlat Deh was, therefore, by and large companyfined to the lands which were affected by river action after the year 1961.
The writ petition was number entertained by the High Court which held that the parties must avail of the remedies provided under the Act.
The special leave petition preferred against the aforesaid order of the High Court was also dismissed by this Court.
The High Court numbericed that only 3 or 4 of the right holders out of the entire village had challenged only a part of the Scheme by the aforesaid writ petition.
After the year 1965 66 there had been numberchange in the area of Shamlat lands due to river action upto the year 1995.
647 OF 2000 Bagirath Singh and another Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others Respondents J U D G M E N T P. SINGH, J. This Civil Appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the order of the High Court dismissing the review petition filed by them for review of the judgment and order of the High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.
The said writ petition having been dismissed, Civil Appeal No.646 of 2000 was preferred before this Court by Special Leave.
It would thus appear from the order of the High Court dated August 10, 1987 that a direction was made by the High Court to frame a Consolidation Scheme only with respect of Shamlat Deh lands.
The Director Consolidation by his order dated January 30, 1979 affirmed the order dated August 18, 1970 numbericing that the Scheme in relation to the Shamlat land had been revoked and that the companycerned right holders had to be given back possession of the land in accordance with that order.
The appellants petitioners claiming to be the proprietors and companysharers in the Shamlat Deh lands which companyprised in three villages, namely Kairwali, Amritpur Khurd and Amritpur Kalan impugned the Consolidation Scheme in respect of Shamlat Deh lands of the aforesaid three villages published on February 8, 1995.
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case we do number companysider it necessary to refer to the arguments advanced at the Bar regarding the companyrectness or otherwise of the orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities dated August 18, 1970 and January 30, 1979.
This order was made by the Deputy Commissioner exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act on August 18, 1970.
After making minor adjustments, the lands available were 16660 Bigha 1 Biswa.
Pursuant to the order aforesaid, an affidavit was filed on behalf of the State of Haryana affirmed by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, stating that the area of Shamlat lands which was subject to river action of all the three villages was 16806 Bight 13 Biswa.
A special leave petition was preferred against the judgment and order of the High Court dated November 16, 1995 but the same was also rejected by this Court on May 2, 1996.
It appears that the Consolidation Officer by his order dated February 5, 1986 purported to give effect to the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal dated August 18, 1970 with regard to change of possession of lands.
Consequent upon initiation of companysolidation operations, a scheme was finalized by the Settlement Officer on November 29, 1966.
They also challenged the order of the Director of Consolidation, Haryana, in Case No.
The said Scheme which has been annexed to this Appeal as Annexure P/5 records the fact that the type and the value of the lands had already been assessed in the year 1965 which had been found to be companyrect on the spot and which had been duly attested in the open session.
This is what was done by framing a Scheme companyfined to the Shamlat Deh lands on February 8, 1995.
On July 4, 1969 the Settlement Officer passed an order for change of possession in accordance with the Scheme since it appeared from the Report of the Consolidation Officer dated June 6, 1969 that almost 90 of the right holders were keen that the Scheme should be implemented and change of possession of land effected.
Before the High Court the State companyceded that the aforesaid order dated February 5, 1986 companyld number be sustained and ought to be quashed.
At the time of partition the area in the Shamlat which has been recovered will be given to only those land owners and occupancy tenants in the first instance in proportion to the area which they have lost since the settlement of Mr. Douie.
It was further stated that the Scheme of 1995 had been framed only in respect of Shamlat lands pursuant to the direction of the High Court dated August 10, 1987.
Pursuant to the order of the High Court a fresh Scheme was published in regard to Shamlat Deh lands on February 8, 1995.
It was also objected to on the ground that the Scheme framed in relation to Shamlat Deh Lands was number in companysonance with Wazab ul Arz.
The writ petition was so disposed of on November 29, 1968.
The judgment of the High Court has been challenged in this appeal.
756 of 1967.
P. SINGH, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.
18310 of 1998.
