DAYAL SINGH Vs. RANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

(2.) The appellants filed the writ petition questioning the validity and correctness of the order dated 19-4-1996 made by the Additional Director, Consolidation, Mohali (Punjab). The respondents filed a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for brevity "the Act"). The Additional Director, Consolidation, by his order dated 19-4-1996, allowed the petition. The said order was challenged by the Gram Panchayat by filing CWP No. 9518 of 1996 and the same was dismissed by the High Court by order dated 13-9-1996. Against that order of the High Court, the Gram Panchayat filed SLP (C) No. 12635 of 1997. The same was dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits and noticing on the peculiar facts of the case. The Gram Panchayat filed yet another petition i.e. CWP No. 9863 of 1996 challenging the very order of the Additional Director dated 19-4-1996. That writ petition was also dismissed by the High Court by its order dated 12-7-1996. The matter did not rest at that. The Gram Panchayat pursued the matter further to this Court by filing SLP (C) No. 3128 of 1997. That SLP was also dismissed on 25-3-1997. The appellants herein filed CWP No. 11515 of 1996 challenging the validity and correctness of the very order dated 19-4-1996 passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation. The High Court, by the impugned order, dismissed the writ petition taking note of the facts stated above and particularly taking note of the fact that the order dated 19-4-1996 passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation had attained finality in view of the orders passed earlier by this Court. It may also be noted that a preliminary objection was taken by the Gram Panchayat, Respondent 4 herein, stating that the order dated 19-4-1996 passed by the Additional Director had attained finality.

(3.) Before us, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that CWP No. 17632 of 1995 is pending before the High Court for adjudication, in which the appellants and one of the private respondents are also parties; the controversy required to be resolved in that writ petition is in a way similar to the controversy that is required to be examined in this appeal; in the writ petition, a ground was raised mentioning about CWP No. 17632 of 1995 and request was made to the High Court that the present writ petition could be heard along with CWP No. 17632 of 1995; the High Court committed an error in not hearing both the writ petitions together. The learned counsel added that in the light of an earlier Judgement of this Court in Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab the Additional Director, Consolidation committed a manifest error in passing the order dated 19-4-1996, without hearing the appellants. According to the learned counsel, the said order passed by the Additional Director, without complying with the directions given in the aforementioned decision of this Court, is bad in law. He further urged that the petition filed by Respondents 2 and 3 under Section 42 of the Act, almost after a period of 40 years, ought not to have been entertained at all on the ground of inordinate delay; the Additional Director had no jurisdiction to pass the order dealing with the question of title.