Gram Panchayat Vs. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings and ors.

.....contest such alienation. it was, therefore, felt necessary to engraft certain restriction on degrees of collateral, eligible to contest an alienation, which under the custom itself was not limited. accordingly, the punjab custom (power to contest) act, 1920 (act no.2 of 1920) was enacted. the hindu succession act was extended to the state of punjab. act 2 of punjab act defined expression alienation to include any testamentary disposition of property and appointment of an heir was to include any adoption made or purporting to be made according to custom. a further provision was made by section 3 that hindu succession act was to apply only in respect of alienation of immovable property or appointment of heirs made by persons who in regard to such alienation or appointment were governed by custom. whereas section 4 declared that hindu succession act was not to affect any right to contest any alienation or appointment of an heir made before the date on which the succession act was to come into force. in other words, act, no.2 of 1920 was not to affect alienation or appointments of heir made before date on which it came into force. it also preserved the rights of any alienation or appointment of an heir made by a family. after section 7 was inserted in act of 1920 by the punjab amendment act of 1973 right of contest being contrary to custom had been totally effaced and taken away. therefore, no person has any right to contest any alienation of immovable property whether ancestral or non-ancestral on ground of being contrary to custom after january 23, 1973. in haryana, the situation as enunciated by act no.2 of 1920 continued to prevail in respect of alienation because no reforms parallel to punjab as brought by amendment act of 1973, had been enacted although right to pre-emption has been substantially abolished in haryana also. no steps even have been taken in that regard. therefore, situation in haryana have to be regarded as it existed under act no. 2 of..........punjab, jalandhar, by which the petition filed by respondent nos. 2 to 7 was accepted and the matter was remanded back to the consolidation officer, hoshiarpur, for redetermining the share of the right-holders. the additional director consolidation vide the impugned order has directed that the consolidation officer should pass a suitable order for declaring the land as shamlat land and thereafter has further directed that he should take suitable action for partitioning the same after determining the share of the right-holders.2. mr. sarjit singh, learned senior counsel, contends that once the land is shamlat deh then the consolidation officer has no jurisdiction to partition the shamlat deh land. it is further contended that the consolidation officer also does not have any jurisdiction to declare any particular land to be shamlat deh or not.3. the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner have been controverted by mr. nabhewala who contends that as long as the nature of the land is not determined, it cannot be said that the land in question is shamlat deh or not. he further submits that in case the consolidation officer comes to the conclusion that the particular piece of land is shamlat deh then that land has to be separated from the bachat land and is not available for partition.4. after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, i modify the impugned order dated 19.1.1987 passed by the additional director consolidation, punjab, jalandhar, to the extent that the consolidation officer shall determine the nature of the entire land available and the land which is described as shamlat deh would not be partitioned in any manner by the consolidation officer. however, the bachat land may be partitioned between the right-holders. in case the respondents are dissatisfied with the description of certain land as shamlat deh, they may challenge the same before the appropriate authority.5. writ petition is disposed of.