LexBAGIRATH SINGH AND ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
t BAGIRATH SINGH AND ANR. A V. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 B [B.P. SINGH AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1966-East Pwyab Holdings (Consolidatioi1 and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948- Section 42--Comprehensive Consolidation Scheme framed for lands including Shani/at Deh lands-Challenge of the Scheme before High Court as the C consolidation of Sham/dt Deh lands was not in accordance with law-High Court directing State to ji·ame a separate Scheme for such lands-New Consolidation Scheme prepared as per the direction of the High Court-Writ Petition challenging the new Scheme dismissed by High Court-Correctness of-Held, on facts, the new Consolidation Scheme is a valid Scheme in D relation to Sham/at Deh lands. In 1966, a comprehensive Consolidation Scheme was framed by the State under the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1966 for consolidation of lands including Shamlat Deh lands. A petition was filed by some right holders before Deputy E Commissioner under section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 challenging the 1966 Scheme. The Deputy Commissioner quashed the partitioning ofShamlat Deh lands being illegal and patently unjust. A Consolidation Officer passed an order giving certain directions as to the manner in which the order of the Deputy Commissioner has to be implemented, A Writ Petition was filed challenging the order of the Consolidation Officer. The High Court quashed the order of the Consolidation Scheme with respect to Shamlat Deh lands in accordance with Jaw keeping in view Sharl Wazab-ul-Arz and rights of right holders. Pursuant to the order of the High Court, a fresh Consolidation Scheme was published in regard to Shamlat Deb lands in 1995. This Scheme was again challenged by some of the right holders before High Court. The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, Special Leave Petition filed before F G this Court was also dismissed. H 1161 1162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. .. """: A Some right holders filed another application under section 42 of the Consolidation Act before Director Consolidation challenging the 1995 Scheme on the ground that the same was illegal being contrary to the provisions of the Consolidation Act. The Dir~ctor dismissed the application holding that the 1995 Scheme framed under the direction of the High B Court and which was subsequently upheld by the High Court could not be challenged under section 42 of the Consolidation Act. The 1995 Scheme and the order of the Director Consolidation were ' challenged by the appellants before High Court by filing a Writ Petition. c The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence the appeal before this Court. Pursuant to the interim order of this Court, the State filed an affidavit giving th~ area of Shamlat lands which was subject to river action. The affidavit further stated that there had been no change in the area of D Shamlat lands due to river action from 1966 upto the year 1995. Dismissing the appeal, the Court • HELD : 1.1. The order of the Deputy Commissioner exercising E revisional jurisdiction under section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 was sought to be implemented and an order was passed by the Consolidation Officer. The same was challenged before the High Court and while setting aside the order of the Consolidation Officer\ the High Court gave a direction to the Consolidation Authorities to frame a Scheme with regard to Sham lat F Deh, lands only in accordance with the provision of Wajab-ul-Arz and I rights of the right holders. This order of the High Court was not challenged and attained finality. In obedience to the orders of the High Court, the 1995 Scheme was framed. The Scheme was again challenged, though on different grounds and the High Court dismissed the said writ petition. The G special leave petition preferred against the aforesaid order of the High Court was also dismissed by this Court. 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 i H by the High Court c
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.