TEG PAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the prayer of the six petitioners, who are the sons of Assa Ram, respondent No. 12, is that the order dated the 28th of August, 1967, passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Amritsar (respondent No. 2) dismissing as time-barred their petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) be quashed, along with another order dated the 9th of April, 1964. passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Jullundur (respondent No. 3), against which the said petition under Section 42 was instituted.

(2.) The facts which need be referred to for the purpose of this controversy lie within a narrow compass. Consolidation of holdings took place in village Taja Patti, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepore, wherein the petitioners and their father Assa Ram, respondent No. 12, owned land as co-sharers, in the early sixties. Gokal Ram respondent No. 4 filed an appeal before respondent No. 3 under Section 21(4) of the Act against the order dated the 14th of October, 1963, passed by the Settlement Officer, Ferozepore, who had, while acting under Section 21(3) of the Act partly accepted an appeal presented to him by Gokal Ram. The impugned order Annexure 'A' was passed by respondent No. 3 in disposal of the appeal before him after he had heard Gokal Ram, respondent No. 4, Assa Ram respondent No. 12 and the other interested rightholders who are arraigned before me as respondent Nos. 5 to 11. That order was passed by consent of the parties appearing before respondent No. 3.

(3.) Neither of these grounds has any merits as I shall presently show. It is not denied before me now that Assa Ram, respondent No. 12, the father of the petitioners, is a co-owner with them in a Khata which he and they held jointly and that the assertion made in the petition that Assa Ram was not a co-sharer with the petitioners but had been allotted land separately from his sons is unfounded. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that the presence of one of the co-sharers before the Consolidation authorities is an effective representation on behalf of all of them. Rattan and another v. The State of Punjab and others, 1965 67 PunLR 276, Bhagwana and others v. The State of Punjab and others, 1966 68 PunLR 307 and Gurdial Singh and others v. The State of Punjab and others, 1967 CurLJ 602. This being the legal position, Assa Ram, one of the co-sharers in the holding in dispute, must be held to have effectively represented the other co-sharers, namely, the petitioners before respondent No. 3, whose order dated the 9th of April, 1964 (Annexure 'A') cannot, therefore, be said to have been vitiated by the infirmity sought to be attached to it.