Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders

“Once a consolidation scheme is confirmed, the consolidation authorities become functus officio. Any further order violating statutory provisions and principles of natural justice is amenable to civil court jurisdiction” – Punjab and Haryana High Court reasserted a critical legal proposition under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948: consolidation authorities cannot confer title, alter the consolidation scheme, or re-allocate land post-confirmation without following mandatory procedures, including giving notice to right-holders.

The Court dismissed the second appeal filed by the appellants-defendants and upheld the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court. It declared the consolidation orders dated 02.07.1964, 28.06.1979, 22.05.1981 and 02.12.1981 (Ex.D1 to D4) as illegal, void ab initio, and without jurisdiction. The decision fortifies the jurisdiction of civil courts in cases where consolidation authorities exceed their powers, especially when issues of title and proprietary rights are involved.

“Civil Court Has Jurisdiction Where Consolidation Authorities Exceed Statutory Limits Post-Scheme”

At the heart of the controversy was land measuring 80 kanals 11 marlas, jointly owned by the proprietors of Thola Gordhan, Village Kanwali, which had been reserved during consolidation proceedings. Despite the scheme being confirmed in 1962, the Assistant Director, Consolidation passed an order dated 02.07.1964 allocating 7 bighas 18 biswas from shamlat thola to certain individuals (predecessors of appellants), on the premise of long-standing possession since 26.01.1950.

This was followed by a chain of administrative orders—without amending the confirmed consolidation scheme and without issuing notice to all right-holders—attempting to execute and regularize the illegal allotment. Eventually, the scheme was retrospectively altered to accommodate the appellants' claims. These actions formed the basis of the suit brought by respondents/plaintiffs, asserting that the land remained joint and the allotments were non est in the eyes of law.

Justice Grewal held that the post-scheme acts of the consolidation authorities lacked jurisdiction and were subject to civil court scrutiny. “Any post-scheme order not in conformity with the statutory procedure and natural justice is open to challenge in a Civil Court,” the Court held, rejecting the argument that Section 44 of the 1948 Act barred civil jurisdiction.

“No Power To Confer Title: Consolidation Authorities Are Not Substitutes For Civil Courts”

The Court took strong exception to the Assistant Director's reliance on the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 to claim that the appellants had acquired ownership by virtue of possession since 1950. The High Court noted that consolidation authorities lack any jurisdiction to declare title, and such declarations must be made only by civil courts.

Referring to the judgment in Parkash Singh v. Joint Development Commissioner, the Court reiterated:

“Consolidation authorities are not empowered to decide a question of title whether between private individuals or between a Gram Panchayat and a private individual. With respect to common lands, they are only empowered to delimit the shamlat khewat and create jumla mushtarka malkhan.”

Thus, the Assistant Director’s attempt to vest ownership and redistribute shamlat thola land post-scheme without amending the scheme and without notice was void and ultra vires.

The Court also drew a clear line between shamlat deh and shamlat thola, observing that:

“Where there is no shamlat deh land, land is reserved out of the common pool of the village for the Panchayat as ‘jumla mushtarka malkan’. Such land vests in the proprietary body for the purpose of management by the panchayat, and cannot be allotted to any individual proprietor without proper legal amendment of the scheme.”

Limitation Cannot Be Casually Condoned In Execution of Illegal Orders

Another major ground on which the High Court invalidated the allotment was the inordinate delay in seeking execution. The appellants applied under Section 42 of the 1948 Act in 1978, seeking to implement the 1964 order—a gap of 14 years. Despite clear limitation bar, the Director Consolidation condoned the delay without recording any sufficient cause, merely stating that “the order must be complied with”.

Terming this approach “shocking and outrageous”, Justice Grewal emphasized that such casual condonation undermines the very foundation of limitation laws and administrative fairness.

“The consolidation authorities had blown hot and cold… They put the cart before the horse in amending the scheme of consolidation after allotting 1 kanal 13 marlas from the land reserved for shamlat thola gordhan.”

No Estoppel Against a Void Order Passed Without Jurisdiction

The appellants argued that no objection was raised at the time of allotment, and hence the plaintiffs were estopped from challenging the allotment later.

However, the Court decisively rejected this, stating: “Absence of objection does not validate an order passed without jurisdiction and contrary to law. There can be no estoppel against challenging a void act.”

The Court also found that civil court jurisdiction was rightly invoked to seek declaration that the orders passed by the consolidation authorities were non-est, especially when no notice was issued to all right-holders before altering their rights.

Framing of Substantial Questions of Law Not Mandatory in Second Appeals

Responding to the technical objection raised by the appellants regarding the non-framing of substantial questions of law, the Court clarified that under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, as applicable to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, such framing is not mandatory. The Court relied on authoritative Supreme Court precedents, including Pankajakshi v. Chandrika, Randhir Kaur v. Prithvi Pal Singh, and Gurbachan Singh v. Gurcharan Singh.

Jurisdiction, Title, Limitation, and Natural Justice – All Violated

Upholding the decree passed by the First Appellate Court, the High Court concluded that the orders Ex.D1 to D4 were illegal, void, and issued without jurisdiction. It held that Civil Courts have jurisdiction to determine the legality of such orders when consolidation authorities exceed their statutory role or breach natural justice.

The High Court’s ruling serves as a significant precedent in delineating the boundaries of power held by consolidation authorities and safeguarding property rights of proprietors in common lands.

Date of Decision: November 20, 2025