High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/21158/2020dismissed

Nanki Devi v. Commissioner Rohtak Division And ANR

2020-12-09Mr Justice Jaswant Singh,Mr. Justice Sant Parkash2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 21158 of 2020 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.12.2020 Smt. Nanki Devi .......... Petitioner

Versus

Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak and another .......... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANT PARKASH

Present:

Mr. Sandeep Parkash Chahar, Advocate for the petitioner.

[ The aforesaid presence is being recorded through video conferencing since the proceedings are being conducted in virtual court ] **** JASWANT SINGH, J. (ORAL) The petitioner (Smt. Nanki Devi) seeks quashing the order dated 22.01.2020 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak (respondent No. 1 herein), exercising the powers under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 1948 (in short "the 1948 Act"), whereby her petition under Section 42 of the 1948 Act for rectification of incorrect record / mutation was remanded to Tehsildar-cum-Consolidation Officer, Rohtak (respondent No. 2 herein) for making correction after hearing the parties.

It is averred that the Assistant Director, Consolidation Department, Rohtak, exercising the powers under Section 42 of the 1948 Act, passed an order dated 12.07.1967 (Annexure P-1) directing deduction of 6 kanal land from the described land of late Smt. Amrit Bai (mother of the petitioner) as the said area was given in excess. Respondent No. 2 (Tehsildar-cum-Consolidation Officer, Rohtak) is not a competent authority DINESH KUMAR 2020.12.

C.W.P. No. 21158 of 2020 (O&M) -2for correction the mistake in the order dated 12.07.1967 as the said order was passed exercising the powers under Section 42 of the 1948 Act, therefore, correction can only be made by the same authority i.e. respondent No. 1 (Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak). After arguing for some time, counsel for the petitioner prays for permission to withdraw the present petition with liberty to seek alternative remedy in accordance with law.

Dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty, as prayed for. ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE December 09, 2020 ( SANT PARKASH ) 'dk kamra'

JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No DINESH KUMAR 2020.12.11 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document