MANSA RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mansa Ram filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the orders of the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer, Additional Director and the Additional Director dated the 13th May, 1960, the 13th August, 1960, the 6th April, 1961, and the 4th May, 1965 (Copies Annexures 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'E' to the petition) respectively.

(2.) The petitioner is a rightholder of village Karimpur Dhiani, Tehsil Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur. Consolidation proceedings in this village started in the year 1953. It is averred in the petition that Bhagat Ram respondent No. 7 feeling aggrieved from the repartition filed an appeal which was allowed by the Settlement Officer and the case was remanded to the Consolidation Officer for fresh decision. After remand, the matter was again taken up by the Consolidation Officer who without hearing the petitioner withdrew some of his valuable land and allotted the same to respondents 5 and 6 vide copy of the order dated the 13th of May, 1960 Annexure 'A' to the petition. Feeling aggrieved from the order of the Consolidation Officer, an appeal was filed under Section 21(3) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act), but the same was rejected by the Settlement Officer (copy of order dated the 13th August, 1960 is Annexure 'B' to the petition). Still dissatisfied, an appeal under Section 21(4) of the Act was preferred but the same was dismissed by the Additional Director, Consolidation (copy Annexure 'C' to the petition). The petitioner then filed a revision petition under Section 42 of the Act, but there also he did not succeed in getting the desired relief and the petition was dismissed by the Additional Director vide his order dated the 4th May, 1965 (copy Annexure 'E' to the petition). It is the legality and correctness of these orders of the consolidation authorities which have been challenged by the petitioner on the grounds stated in the petition.

(3.) Respondents 1 to 4 have been served. No one appears on their behalf nor has any written statement been put in by them. Respondents 5 to 7 were served for the tentative date. Actual date registered post-cards were sent to them for the 14th of November, 1969. No one appears on their behalf nor have they chosen to file a written statement. In these circumstances, there is no other alternative for me but to proceed ex parte against the respondents.