28/22 within the extended phirni has been given to the appellants on the ground that Killa No.
324 from the date they got the land field No.
324 , of which the appellants were bhumidars.
Here, in this case, admittedly the respondents No.
Thereafter, he sold his land Killa No.
3 in lieu of Killa No.
28/22 to respondent No.
4 had already taken benefit of the inclusion of his land in Field No.
This Killa No.
3 herein.
However, in cases the right holders who have transferred the land after repartition under section 21 1 of the Act, the benefit of Beshi Phirni shall accrue to the purchaser.
By the amended Scheme of companysolidation the Laldora was extended by inclusion of land measuring 56 bighas and 6 biswas companyprised in various field numbers including No.
Thereafter, respondent No.
The learned Financial Commissioner, after elaborately companysidering the respective companytentions of the parties in the light of the material placed before him, allowed the claim of respondent No.
1244, which was included in Laldora area.
It is thereafter the land bearing Khasra No.
Pursuant to their application the appellants were allotted plot No.
68 of 1993 before the High Court.
3 purchased the land Killa No.
Learned senior companynsel for the appellants, on the basis of the amended Scheme issued under Section 36 of the Act Annexure P 1 translated version , urged that the appellants being old bhumidars were entitled for the benefit as a result of inclusion of the land Kila No.
Hence this appeal.
3 was owner of this land having purchased it under registered sale deed from respondent No.
The appellants being aggrieved by the said order of the Financial Commissioner filed the Civil Writ Petition No.
3 purchased the said land much later.
They did number raise any objection against this allotment.
324 each measuring 4 bighas and 9 biswas.
The area so allotted was companyprised in field Nos.
28/12, 28/19 and 28/22.
4 was right holder of the land in field No.
It was further explained that the benefit of Beshi Phirni had to be given to the previous original bhumidars and that the respondent No.
This land was included in the phirni Laldora when the original Scheme of companysolidation came into force in the year 1987.
324 as it was allotted to him in lieu of inclusion of his land No.
3 in the year 1988.
The said land was included in the phirni Laldora when the original Scheme of companysolidation was brought into force in the year 1987.
28/22 was Khasra No.
3 is number the old bhumidar.
102/19 and 102/20 to respondent No.
4 had availed the benefit in lieu of inclusion of his land field No.
4,5 and 6 had been allotted plot No.
28/22 actually formed the pre consolidation Khasra No.
The respondent No.
Learned single Judge of the High Court by a detailed and well companysidered order did number find any merit in the writ petition.
According to him respondent No.
Accordingly he was put in possession of the said lands during the repartition proceedings in the year 1987.
324 had been included within the extended phirni in the original scheme of companysolidation.Thereafter, the appellants filed the Letters Patent Appeal No.
28/22.
Further, respondent No.
This land was included in Laldora.
By the impugned judgment the Division Bench of the High Court, agreeing with the findings recorded by the learned single Judge affirming the order of the Financial Commissioner, dismissed the appeal.
Consequently, allotment of plot No.
468 of 1999 before the Division Bench of the High Court.
4 in lieu of his plot No.
4 sold his land in Killa No.
679 in lieu of it as stated above.
324 in village Alipur.
The respondent No.
It is also number the case of these respondents that Khasra No.
The Financial Commissioner in his order, looking to the Hindi version of the amended Scheme Annexure P 1 , has observed, thus This companytroversy is set at rest by the reading of the Hindi version of the amended scheme of companysolidation, which amplifies the position.
In view of the companyments the appellants were impleaded as parties to the revision petition.
3 filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Delhi under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holding Consolidation Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1948 for short the Act , making a grievance that the Consolidation Officer had companymitted an error in number extending the benefit of Beshi Phirni to him by number allotting him three times of the value of his land included within the phirni as per the amended Scheme.
It is better to numberice material events to appreciate the respective companytentions.
28/22 measuring 4 bighas and 9 biswas in the year 1988 to Gautam Jain, respondent No.
In particular, he drew our attention to the portion in Annexure P 1 While allotting plots the right for allotment would be of the old bhumidars only if their names are mentioned in the list.
As per the Scheme he was allotted three times area of agricultural land in lieu of field No.
Consequently the writ petition was dismissed.
4 in this appeal, was right holder of land in field No.
324 earlier, i.e., pre consolidation field number.
1244 at Alipur at the time of companymencement of the operation of companysolidation.
Since respondent No.
3 by order dated 23.10.1992.
The companysolidation proceedings were started in village Alipur under the Act in the year 1987.
324 after accepting the plot No.
Thereafter, in the year 1988 the respondent No.
4 became the owner of the Killa No.
324 was allotted to respondent No.
679 became final.
From the events mentioned above, it is clear that the appellants ceased to be the bhumidars of the field No.
324, which was in their bhumidari.
28/22, which was included in Laldora companysequent to the amendment of the Scheme of companysolidation.
The Scheme was amended on 24.7.1991, i.e., long after the respondent No.
The appellants were original bhumidars of land bearing Khasra No.
28/22 the original khasra No.
1244 in the Laldora the Consolidation Officer, by his order dated 25.3.1992, allotted equal area forming Killa Nos.
The Consolidation Officer, in the companyments offered by him to the revision petition, stated that the Beshi Phirni as a result of the inclusion of Killa No.
1244 of the said village.
28/22 old Khasra No.
As on the date of approval of the amended Scheme of companysolidation the respondent No.
One Dinesh Kumar, respondent No.
Thus, the respondent No.
679, which they accepted in lieu of the land No.
The Scheme of companysolidation prepared under Section 19 of the Act was companyfirmed under Section 20 of the Act by the Settlement Officer on 24.7.1987 in respect of the said village.
3 was number entitled to such benefit as he had purchased the land in question, which was mutated in his name much after the formation of the original Scheme.
679 during repartition in lieu of Khasra No.
He got the benefit of inclusion of this land in the extended Laldora and was allotted three times area of agricultural land of the pre consolidation area companyprising of three field numbers given new Killa numbers during the repartition, namely, 28/12, 28/19 and 28/22 pre consolidation field No.
Shivaraj V. Patil, J. The only point that arises for determination is whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of allotment of Beshi Phirni area as a result of inclusion of Killa No.
28/22 within the extended phirni as a result of the amended Scheme of companysolidation companyfirmed on 12.8.1991.
