Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Gram Panchayat Village Sufipind vs State Of Punjab Through Secretary& Ors

Supreme Court1 February 1996K. Ramaswamy

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a consolidation authority exercises revisional jurisdiction to realign a plot without issuing prior notice to a party claiming interest in the land (whether as owner or as holder of vested rights under statute), the order of realignment is liable to be set aside and the matter remanded for reconsideration, with the consolidation officer required to issue notice to all interested parties, conduct personal inspection of the site, and determine alignment in the presence of the parties according to law.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

PETITIONER:GRAM PANCHAYAT VILLAGE SUFIPIND
Vs.
RESPONDENT:STATE OF PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY& ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/02/1996
BENCH:RAMASWAMY, K.BENCH:RAMASWAMY, K.G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:1996 SCC (7) 449 JT 1996 (2) 1391996 SCALE (2)SP45
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:

O R D E R This appeal by special leave arises against the order dated 21st May, 1975 of the High Court dismissing Writ Petition No.1887/75 as usual in limine. The controversy is whether abadi plot No.71 is a pathway which stands vested in the Gram Panchayat, Sufipind or whether it passes through the passage to the respondent. Admittedly, the consolidation proceedings were completed in 1959. An application came to be made in 1974 after long lapse of time for realignment of the plot so as not to cause disturbance of his enjoyment of Plot No.71. The Gram Panchayat claimed that it is a pathway and under the Punjab Village Common Land [Regulation] Act, 1961 and later it stands vested in the Gram Panchayat by operation of Section 4 [2] of that Act. Admittedly, notice was not issued to the Gram Panchayat. The authority had exercised the revisional jurisdiction under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act and condoned the delay and passed the order for realignment. In view of the fact that the respondent is claiming access to his property and realignment thereof, the appropriate course would be to set aside the order and to remand the matter to the consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer is directed to issue prior notice to the appellant as well as to the respondent. He should make a personal inspection to the place and then determine the alignment in their presence according to law. That would not only avoid needless wastage of time but the rights of the parties would also be settled in the presence of the parties by looking into the factual position as well as actual need in that behalf.

Under these circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The Consolidation Officer is directed to do the exercise within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of this order. No costs.

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free