CWP-7576-2020 (O/M) -1- 2025:PHHC:063654 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-7576-2020 (O/M) Date of decision : 14.05.2025 Avtar Singh ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present :- Mr. Saurav Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Neeraj Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajneesh Chadwal, AAG Haryana. -.- -.- HARSH BUNGER, J. 1. Petitioner (Avtar Singh) has filed the instant civil writ petition under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the orders dated 26.02.2020 (Annexure P-12), passed by Commissioner, Faridabad Division, Faridabad; orders dated 25.05.2016, 30.06.2016 (Annexure P-7 and Annexure-P-8, respectively), passed by Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon and order dated 30.05.2017 (Annexure P-10), passed by learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana (in short 'Financial Commissioner'). 2. Briefly, the petitioner herein has submitted an application before Assistant Collector-cum-Tehsildar, Faridabad; seeking possession of 13 Marla area (3 Karams x 38 Karams) on the plea that the area of the petitioner falls in Killa No. 532 and during consolidation, the petitioner was allocated 13 Marla area falling on the southern side of his land, SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2025.05.26 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-7576-2020 (O/M) -2- 2025:PHHC:063654 however, the same has been left in the adjoining Killa No. 531, which belongs to Salig Ram (respondent No. 4 herein) and he is continuing in unauthorized possession thereof. 2.1 The aforesaid application submitted by petitioner was contested by Salig Ram, inter alia, on the plea that the petitioner (Avtar Singh) is neither a co-sharer nor in possession of Killa No. 531, accordingly, prayer for dismissal of the petition has been made. 2.2 The Assistant Collector-cum-Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 20.05.2016 (Annexure P-3), allowed the petition filed by the petitioner by holding that the petitioner is entitled to possession of area measuring 3 Karams x 38 Karams from the northern side of Killa No. 531. 2.3 It appears that Salig Ram challenged the aforesaid order dated 20.05.2016 (Annexure P-3) by submitting a representation before learned Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, which came to be allowed, vide order dated 30.06.2016 (Annexure P-8), whereby the order dated 20.05.2016 (Annexure P-3) was set aside. 2.4 Being dis-satisfied, the petitioner challenged order dated 30.06.2016 (Annexure P-8) by filing a petition (Annexure P-9) under Section 16 of Punjab Land Revenue Act before learned Financial Commissioner, however, the same was dismissed, vide order dated 30.05.2017 (Annexure P-10). 2.5 Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a civil writ petition (CWP-15586-2017), which came to be disposed of on the basis of a consensus arrived at between the parties, vide order dated 23.09.2019, the relevant extracts of which read as under :- SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2025.05.26 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-7576-2020 (O/M) -3- 2025:PHHC:063654 “ Learned counsel for respondent No.4 (contesting), on the basis of the record, has very fairly conceded the fact that the matter requires to be remanded back to the Commissioner for fresh decision in the light of the pleas taken by the petitioner that neither the principles of natural justice have been complied nor any hearing has been given, and, thus, no opportunity to put forth his claim has been afforded to him. In view of the records and keeping in view the fact as detailed in order dated 19.07.2017, the present writ petition is allowed to the extent that the order dated 30.06.2016 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Commissioner, Gurugram Division, Gurugram and as a consequence thereof order dated 30.05.2017 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana, are hereby set-aside. The case is remanded back to the Commissioner, Faridabad, for fresh decision on consideration of the respective submissions of the parties. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the Commissioner, Faridabad, on 30.10.2019. The Commissioner shall thereafter make an endeavour to decide the same at an early date preferably within a period of four months from the said date. Status-quo with regard to possession be maintained till the disposal of the matter before the Commissioner, Faridabad. Since the main writ petition stands disposed of, no orders are required to be passed on the pending applications.” 2.6 Thereafter, the matter was taken up by learned Commissioner, Faridabad Division, Faridabad, who vide impugned order dated 26.02.2020 (Annexure P-12), held that the demand of the petitioner (Avtar Singh) is baseless and accordingly, his claim was rejected. SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2025.05.26 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-7576-2020 (O/M) -4- 2025:PHHC:063654 3. In the aforementioned circumstances, the petitioner has filed the instant civil writ petition before this Court for the relief (s), as noticed hereinabove. 4. Heard. 5. The only claim raised on behalf of petitioner is that during consolidation, he had been allocated land as per his entitlement, which included 13 Marla area falling on the southern side of his Killa No. 532 and the said area forms a part of Killa No. 531, which is under the possession of Salig Ram (respondent No. 4). 5.1 During the course of hearing of this writ petition, a specific query was raised to learned counsel for petitioner to show copy of “Naksha Haqdarwar” of the petitioner, so as to show his entitlement and also to substantiate his plea that the petitioner was entitled to 13 Marla area, as claimed by him. However, neither such document has been attached with the instant writ petition nor any such document has been shown during the course of the hearing of this case. 5.2 That apart, learned Commissioner, Faridabad Division, Faridabad, vide impugned order dated 26.02.2020 (Annexure P-12), has returned a finding that the petitioner has not suffered any deficiency during consolidation and he has been allocated area as per his entitlement. The relevant extracts of finding returned by learned Commissioner, Faridabad Division, Faridabad read as under :- “ After careful perusal of the written arguments, revenue record and report of Assistant Consolidation Officer, Faridabad, it revealed that an area of applicant Avtar Singh measuring 6 kanal 10 marlas which becomes 5 kanal 14 marlas standard, the same was purchased. As per SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2025.05.26 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-7576-2020 (O/M) -5- 2025:PHHC:063654 consolidation scheme, for getting Rasta etc., Mujrai was done by all the villagers and that is how, Mujrai of 6 marlas standard out of 5 kanal 14 marlas standard of applicant Avtar Singh was made. In this way, demand of applicant Avtar Singh was made as 5 kanal 8 marla standard. As per report of Assistant Consolidation Officer, record Naksha Haqdarwar and partition resolution, demand is clearly entered that against the demand of 5 kanal 8 marla of applicant Avtar Singh, an area of 6 kanal 3 marla simple has been given and simple area of 5 kanal 8 marlas standard, comes to 6 kanal 3 marla whereas an area of 6 kanal 4 marla simple has been given to applicant Avtar Singh. In this way, as per demand of applicant – Avtar Singh, his area has been made good as per scheme of consolidation. Order dated 8.5.2006 has been passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Rohtak in violation of provisions of enshrine under Consolidation Act, 1948 and by travelling beyond his jurisdiction because the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Rohtak can only hear an appeal against the order passed under Section 21(3) and 21(2) of the Consolidation Act, 1948. No appeal has ever been filed before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) against any of the order passed by Consolidation Officer. As per Consolidation Act, 1948, an appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) against the order passed by Consolidation Officer can be filed within a period of 30 days. In this way, the order passed by Consolidation Officer (Consolidation), Rohtak dated 8.5.2006 on not being in accordance with rules, is defective, which has rightly been set aside by the learned Commissioner Gurugram Division, Gurugram vide the order dated 23.2.2016. On the basis of aforementioned grounds, I have come to the conclusion that demand of applicant – Avtar Singh is baseless, which is dismissed. SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2025.05.26 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-7576-2020 (O/M) -6- 2025:PHHC:063654 This case has been kept reserved for orders, therefore, both the parties be informed about this order.” 6. Since the petitioner has failed to refer any material/document to show that he has suffered any deficiency during consolidation, in my considered view, there is no basis for the claim being made by the petitioner and the same has been rightly rejected by learned Commissioner, Faridabad Division, Faridabad, vide impugned order dated 26.02.2020 (Annexure P-12). 7. In view of the above, the instant civil writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. 8. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stand closed. (HARSH BUNGER) JUDGE 14.05.2025 sjks Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2025.05.26 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document