Gram Panchayat, Gunia Majri Petitioner, v. Director, Consolidation Of Holdings & Ors.

M.R Agnihotri, J. — The short question of law in this bunch of C.W.P Nos. 1329 of 1988, 6179 of 1986 and Nos. 686, 1564, 1565, 1566, 1631, 1632, 1633, 1844, 3658 and 3659 of 1987, as also 1039 of 1988 being identical all these petitions are being disposed of by one and the same judgment.

2. During consolidation proceedings under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, certain area of land can be earmarked for the “common purposes” of a village by imposing cut on the holdings of the proprietors of the village. A controversy arose in this Court in a number of cases where different entries in revenue record were interpreted to mean that the land reserved for the common purposes of the village had the effect of depriving, the landowners, that is, the original proprietors of the village by vesting the land permanently in the Gram Panchayat. The reservation of land for the common purposes was challenged but the same has since been upheld by various decisions of this Court. In that context, the narrow point for consideration which falls for adjudication in the present cases is, as to whether once a certain area of land is earmarked by imposing a pro rata cut on the holdings of the proprietors and all the common purposes for which the land was taken stand fully satisfied by the utilization of the land required for each such purpose, the remaining that is Bachat (land) should be re-distributed back to the proprietors from whom it was taken or it should be allowed to remain with the Panchayat for income of the Panchayat by leasing it out to the lessees-Harijans or non-Harijans, village proprietors, etc.

3. After the controversy was settled by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Gram Panchayat, Sadhraur (formerly Dhumma) etc. v. Baldev Singh and ors 1977 PLJ 276, the consistent view is that the land (Bachat) deducted from the holdings of the proprietors should be re-distributed amongst the proprietors pro rata (Hasab Rasad Khewat). For authority, reference be made to the judgment of D.S Tewatia, J., in Gurdial Singh and ors. v. The State of Haryana and ors., 1979 PLJ 350, and Des Raj and anr. v. The Gram Sabha of Village Ladhot and anr., 1981 PLJ 300 by J.V Gupta, J. (as his Lordship then was).

4. Precisely, this very view has been taken by the Director/Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, in the present writ petitions and the cases have been remitted by issuing the directions to the Consolidation Officers for re-distribution of land to the original proprietors from whom it was taken during consolidation pro rata by defining the shares of the right-holders. These orders are sought to be challenged on the ground that entries like Hasab Rasad Khewat, Jumla Mushtarka Malkan or Jumla Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Aran Hasab Rasad Raqba, do not entitle the right-holders to claim this land once the same was earmarked and reserved for common purposes. The plea taken by the Gram Panchayats and lessees of the Panchayats is wholly without any basis in view of the aforesaid judgments.

5. Before parting, it may be noticed, to be fair to the petitioners, that the course of action adopted by the Consolidation Officers was also sought to be challenged on the ground that the original proprietors from whom land was taken during consolidation have approached the consolidation authorities after a considerably long period and that too direct under Section 42 of the said Act of 1948. I am not impressed by the argument as substantial justice has been done between the parties and if a mistake crept in during consolidation, that is, by either reserving the land more than what was required or by not immediately re-distributing it back after the consolidation proceedings were over, the same may be done now even after a lapse of quarter of a century or so. The action does not become in any way illegal or contrary to the statute. Rather, the consolidation authorities are to be encouraged for their arriving at the decision correctly, though at a belated stage.

6. Consequently, all these petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.

Petition dismissed.