Find a Lawyer

Revision Side No. 342 of 1957‑58, decided on 17th November 1959, District Gujrat.

Punjab Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1937, rr. 16, 17 & 18 Reasonable notice of visit of Consolidation Officer necessary and not notice for compliance of rr.16, 17 & 18‑Separate notice to Custodian not necessary‑Proclamation by beat of drum enough.

Kh. Abdur Rahim for Petitioners

.

This is a revision filed against an order dated the 15th of April 1958, passed by the Collector, Gujrat, where by he dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and upheld the order of the Consolidation Officer, Gujrat.

The facts of the case are that the consolidation scheme of village Farakhpur, Tehsil Kharian, District Gujrat was confirmed by the Consolidation Officer on 31st March 1957. The petitioners went in appeal to the Collector who dismissed it on 15‑4‑58. They have now come up in revision.

The learned counsel for the petitioners raised the following points before me:‑

(a) that the provisions of rules 16, 17 and 18 were not complied with ;

(b) that no notice was given to the Custodian ;

(c) that, instead of getting land at one place, the petitioners have been given land In nine places;

(d) that the classification of land was not kept in view and

(e) that no compensation was given to Raham Dad. As regards (a), the learned counsel for the petitioners was under the impression that a reasonable notice is necessary for the compliance of provision of rules 16, 17 and 18. As law stands, this is not the correct position. A reasonable notice to all concerned has to be given in respect of the visit of the A Consolidation Officer. An examination of the record shows that this was done and a proclamation by beat of drum was made in the village that the Consolidation Officer will be visiting the village on the 31st March 1957.

After the general lines mentioned in rule 15 framed under the Punjab Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1936 have been approved, the provisions of rules 16, 17 and 18 ibid can be complied with at one and the same date' This is what actually was done. At any rate, I find that, on the 31st March 1957, the petitioners' thumb‑marked the relevant documents in token of their objections having been removed and therein it was stated that, if the scheme was finally approved, there would be no objection.

So far as the notice to the Custodian is concerned, it is not necessary that a separate notice should issue to the Custodian. In this particular case, notice of the Consolidation Officer's visit was given through proclamation by beat of drum. For legal purposes, this is sufficient and once the owners as a whole are informed in this manner the Custodian should also be presumed to have been given notice of as he is in charge of the evacuee property. In this particular village, it was his own duty to arrange that, if other owners were informed of a certain order there should be some method by which he or his officer can be informed. At any rate, absence of a separate notice to the Custodian in the face of a proclamation mentioned above has not resulted in any material irregularity or miscarriage of justice so far as the petitioners are concerned.

As regards the other three points, they relate to facts and not to any non‑compliance of mandatory or other provisions. An examination of the record shows that there is no force in these contentions, because, the petitioners got land in different places as they wanted to retain areas in their possession. The classification about soil was also adhered to and compensation was also given to Raham Dad. In these circumstances, there is no justification for any interference on the revisional side. The revision fails and is dismissed hereby.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.