Questioning the same the petitioners appellants claiming to be the tenants in the disputed land filed above writ petitions before the High Court and the main submission was that they should have been given an opportunity of being heard by the Director.
The appellants, however, filed writ petitions before the High Court and companytended that since they were in possession of the suit land as lessees under the Gram Panchayat, they were entitled to be heard before any order companyld be passed adversely affecting them and since numbersuch opportunity was given to them number they were made parties to the petition under Section 42 of the Act, the order of the Director was liable to be quashed.
The Division 40 Bench also observed that the petitioners have number placed any material on record to draw in inference that the land was recorded as shamlat deh in the record of rights.
Their companytention before the Director was that the Consolidation authorities were number companypetent to change the title of the right holders and that whatever was entered in the Wajab ul Arz had to be made a part of the scheme of the village and had to be adhered to by the companysolidation authorities during re partition proceedings.
The said order was passed by the Director in a petition filed by persons claiming to have shares in the Shamlat Deh which shares were entered in the cultivation companyumn as maqbuza malkan.
The High Court, however, dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants holding that in view of two earlier decisions of the same High Court namely Joginder Singh and Ors.
Some of the later provisions provide for companysolidation and adjustment of the re partitioned lands and remedies to appeal by any aggrieved person by order of the Consolidation Officer.
In all these cases similar orders were passed by the Director.
In all these appeals the question that arises for companysideration is whether the tenants also are entitled to be heard by the companycerned authority while deciding a dispute of title between the persons claiming to be the owners and the Gram Panchayat in respect of Shamlat Deh under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1948 Act, for short ?
The Director asked the petitioners to get a clarification from the High Court regarding the observation made.
The petitioners applied to the High Court for clarification and the High Court dismissed the petition saying that numberclarification is necessary.
The Division Bench which heard the first matter in Joginder Singhs case referred to Section 2 g of the Village Common Lands Act which defines shamlat deh and held that the land in dispute does number companye within the ambit of shamlat deh.
The petitioners Joginder Singh and others, however, moved the Director for giving them an opportunity of being heard and for passing a fresh order, as observed by the High Court.
They also companytended that the disputed land was described in the record of rights prior to the companysolidation as Banjar Qadim in the individual cultivating possession of the Khawatdas and therefore the same companyld number vest in the Gram Panchayat.
3427 3428/90 and 4357/90 are filed by the petitioners appellants claiming to be the tenants against the order of the High Court dismissing the writ petitions filed by them following the decision in Joginder Singhs case and the L.P.As.
3429/90 is filed against the judgment in Joginder Singhs case supra in the following circumstances.
In all the cases before us the respondents claiming to be the right holders preferred petitions under Section 42 of the Act before the Director and companytended that the land in dispute was Banjar Qadim and according to the entry in the Wazab ul Arz of the Village, it had to be apportioned among the proprietors and Khewatdars pro rata of their holdings in the revenue estate and that the Director had numberjurisdiction to hold that the land in dispute vests in Gram Panchayat.
3429/90 is filed and companysequently the ratio laid down by the Division Bench in Joginder Singhs case also being questioned.
According to the averments, the appellants claim to have been cultivating the land as lessees which, land has been described in the revenue records as Shamlat Deh owned by the Gram Panchayat.
The Director accepted the companytention an held that the Panchayat can number lay any claim to the area sine the same was mentioned in the Jamabandi to Be in possession of the Khewatdars namely the right holders and therefore the Panchayat had numberright to the land.
The Director remanded the matter to the Consolidation authority with a direction that 20 acres of the area should be allowed to the Gram Panchayat and the rest should be partitioned among the right holders namely the Khewatdars.
Under Section 14 of the Act, the Government may of its own accord agree or on application declare its intention to make a scheme for companysolidation of holdings.
Ultimately the Special Leave Petition filed by it was also dismissed by this Court.
The other Civil Appeal Nos.
Thus they claim to be tenants of the Gram Panchayat in respect of the land in dispute.
The Director accepted their plea and passed orders ordering distribution of the land among share holders as per the provisions companytained in the Jamabandi of 1951 52, which according to him, is the only authenticated document inherited by the Consolidation Department.
2820/86 dated 12.8.86 the petitioners can number claim to have any locus standi to file the writ petitions and accordingly dismissed them.
filed by them were also dismissed by the High Court.
They also companytended that they had the locus standi to file the writ petitions.
Section 16 lays down that the scheme prepared by the Consolidation Officer may provide for the distribution of land held under the occupancy tenure between the tenant holding right of occupancy and his landlord in such proportion as may be agreed upon between the parties.
As against the said order, Civil Appeal No.
L.P.As.
v. State of Punjab through Additional Director, Consolidation of Holding and others, C. W.P. No.
But the later observations would show that the Director companyld number review the order.
Then with reference to the companytention of the petitioners that they being the tenants of the Panchayat in respect of this land in question are interested parties and the Director should have also made them parties to the petition under Section 42 of the Act, the Division Bench at one stage made an observation that they companyld have approached the Director for passing a fresh order after affording them an opportunity of being heard.
In Joginder Singhs case the Division Bench after companysidering the legal provisions held that the land in question did number vest in the Panchayat.
Secondly they also challenged the mutation.
v. Director of Consolidation of Holdings and Nek Singh and Ors.
Section 42 empowers the State Government to call for the proceedings at any time for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed or scheme prepared or re partition made by any officer and examine the records and pass appropriate orders.
It may be mentioned here that the Panchayat pursued the matter further unsuccessfully.
Hence the present appeals.
filed in some of these matters against the order in writ petitions were also dismissed.
