Punjab-Haryana High Court
Thakar Dawara vs State Of Punjab And Others on 24 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(PROCEEDINGS THROUGH V.C.)
109
Civil Writ Petition No.24399 of 2021
Date of Decision: March 24th, 2022
Thakar Dawara, Village Garhi Kaanugua, Tehsil Balachaur,
District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Punjab
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Ms. Dhivya Jerath, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Monika Jalota, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
Challenge in this writ petition is to order dated 28.07.2021
(Annexure P-7) passed by the Director, Land Records, Punjab, vide which a
petition under Section 42 of The East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and
Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as
'Consolidation Act') filed by the petitioner stands allowed after considering the
stands taken by the respective parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application
which was preferred by the petitioner under Section 42 of the Consolidation
Act for getting correction of misal haqiat in the consolidation record, where
inadvertently, only Thakar Dawara Garhi Kaangua has been written whereas
Thakar Dawara Kaangua Baitman Ram Kishan son of Shankar Dass Faquir
Beragi should have been recorded. This he asserts on the plea that it has been
so recorded in khatauni istemal, naksha haqdarwar and khatauni khumish
1 of 4
while preparing the revenue record during the consolidation in the year
1951-52. She contends that the claim of the petitioner being based upon the
earlier revenue record, the same was required to be accepted and the
rejection of the same is without taking into consideration the actual facts.
Prayer has thus been made for setting aside the impugned order and carrying
out the necessary corrections in the revenue records maintained by the
Consolidation Department.
3. We have considered the submissions made by the counsel for
the parties and with their assistance, have gone through the pleadings,
records of the case and the annexures which have been appended along with
the writ petition but do not find ourselves in agreement with the same.
4. Perusal of the impugned order would show and depict that the
correct facts as available and based on the record are that at the time of
consolidation of the village, entry of Ram Kishan was mentioned qua the
land in question in the cultivation column of khatauni istemal, which
continued till record of khatauni paimaish of consolidation.
Mahant Ram Kishan died during the course of consolidation on 04.09.1957
and one Ram Lal put forth his claim to the inheritance of
Mahant Ram Kishan. The said mutation No.1731 dated 26.01.1962
regarding inheritance stood cancelled and none of the Mahant/Chela put
forth his claim on the land belonging to the Mandir, due to which no name
of any Mahant of the said Mandir was entered in the cultivation column of
misal haqiat.
Jatinder Pal, who has filed the present writ petition, had earlier
claimed himself to be disciple of Mahant Ram Lal and filed suit for
declaration i.e. Civil Suit No.26 of 2008 before the Civil Court claiming
2 of 4
himself to be the Mahant of Mandir. The said civl suit was dismissed by the
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balachaur, vide judgment dated
16.05.2011 (Annexure P-8) followed by an appeal preferred by him, which
was dismissed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge at
S.B.S. Nagar on 22.01.2014 (Annexur P-9). The said order has attained
finality.
5. It is after that, that the present petition under Section 42 of the
Consolidation Act has been preferred, wherein State has been impleaded as
a party. The said application was allowed vide order dated 15.10.2018
without disclosing these aspects in the petition.
6. An application was thereafter filed by the registered body,
which is looking after the said Mandir i.e. Thakar Dawara, Village Garhi
Kaangua, Tehsil Balachaur, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar-
respondent No.4 for impleadment as respondent and for recall/setting aside
of the ex parte order dated 15.10.2018 obtained by the petitioner
fraudulently and without disclosing the correct facts. The said order was set
aside by the Director, Land Records, Punjab, vide the impugned order dated
28.07.2021 being based upon non-disclosure of true facts and being
ex parte without impleading the necessary parties. As a consequence
thereof, the order which has been passed by the Consolidation Officer in
pursuance to the earlier order dated 15.10.2018 i.e. on 31.07.2019 has also
been set aside by the Director, Land Records, Punjab, Jalandhar-respondent
No.2, which in the considered view of this Court, is in accordance with law
which do not call for any interference in exercise of its extraordinary writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. This, we state in the light
of the judgment passed by the Civil Court declining the suit for declaration
3 of 4
of the petitioner as Mahant of the Dera, which findings have attained
finality up to the Appellate Court.
7. The orders which have been assailed by the petitioner before
this Court being in accordance with law do not call for any interference.
The writ petition, therefore, stands dismissed.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
JUDGE
March 24th, 2022 (SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
Puneet JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: No
4 of 4
