GURPAL SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, through a decree of the Civil Court, dated the 5th August, 1968, had the order of the Additional Director of Consolidation of Holdings, copy Annexure 'A', dated the 16th August, 1966, set aside on the ground that it was illegal and void. Proviso to Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (East Punjab Act 50 of 1948), specifically says that if an order adverse to a party interested is to be made, then it had to be made after notice to such a party and after giving such a party an opportunity of being heard. Obviously, when making his order on the 16th August, 1966, the Additional Director of Consolidation of Holdings acted outside the statute in making that order without hearing the appellant who was interested in the proceedings at that stage. So the civil Court had the jurisdiction to quash that order of the Additional Director of Consolidation of Holdings on the ground that he had made that order acting outside the statute and contrary to the proviso to Section 42 of the Act.

(2.) The Civil Court, however, left the parties to make a fresh approach under the Act to have the matter corrected according to law, and, pursuant to that direction, Prem Singh, respondent 3, made an application under Section 42 of the Act, again seeking the same relief as he had sought in his earlier application under Section 42 in which the previous order had been made.

(3.) The learned Single Judge has dismissed the appellant's petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution against the order, Annexure 'D', of October 7, 1968, of the Additional Director of Consolidation of Holdings on the ground that interference with that order is sought on a mere technicality. We are not disposed to accept this approach for this reason that by his order the Additional Director of Consolidation of Holdings, when approached under Section 42 of the Act, has refused to exercise jurisdiction in not attending to the merits of the application under Section 42, made by respondent 3, and disposing of it in the terms of the statute.