JAMADAR SHEOJI RAM Vs. DAULATI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent and is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court allowing the writ petition of the legal representatives of Chuhar Ram.

(2.) On the facts there is no dispute. In a petition filed by Sheoji Ram initially Subedar-Major Mula Ram was impleaded as respondent. Later on, he realised that the person against whom the relief had to be granted was one Chuhar Ram. He accordingly impleaded Chuhar Ram on 15th of February, 1963, little, realising that Chuhar Ram was dead, he having died on 6th November, 1962. The legal representatives of Chuhar Ram, after an order had been passed under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, against them, moved the Director for review of that order, on the short ground that they were not represented and not heard. This review petition was dismissed by the Director on the basis of the Supreme Court Decision in Roop Chand v. The State of Punjab, 1963 65 PunLR 576. A second review petition was presented to the Director by the general attorney of Chuhar Ram. This petition was filed sometime in 1964 and was ultimately rejected by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Rohtak, on 19th January, 1965, on the short ground that the mere fact that there were errors in the previous order did not justify a review of the same.

(3.) Dissatisfied with this course of events, the legal representatives of Chuhar Ram then preferred a petition to this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Their principal ground was that the order under Section 42 had been passed against a deed man and was a nullity. The stand taken up by the respondent, jamadar Sheoji Ram was that Wasdev was present when Section 42 petition was decided. The learned Single Judge after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, allowed the writ petition and quashed the order under Section 42 on the short ground that the order having been passed against a dead man is a nullity. A direction has been issued that the petition filed by respondent No. 4, i.e. jamadar Sheoji Ram, under Section 42 of the Act "may now be heard and disposed of on merits after hearing all the interested parties in accordance with law. It would be open to all the parties to raise any plea of law or fact including that of limitation before the Additional Director." It is against this decision that Jamadar Sheoji Ram had preferred the present appeal.