GURMEJ KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gurmej Kaur petitioner is a right-holder in Chak Misri Khan, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar, where proceedings for consolidation of holdings took place in 1961-62. She having been given less area of block third and having failed to get her due filed a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter the Act). The Additional Director Consolidation vide order dated February 23, 1966, (Annexure A) recognised her right to the relief prayed for by her and remanded the case to the Settlement Officer for making up the shortage in her third grade area. The Consolidation Officer then passed the order dated June 30, 196, (Annexure B). The Consolidation Officer held :-

(2.) The consolidation Officer then passed the order in terms of the observations made above which were agreed to by Sulakhan Singh. Gurmej Kaur petitioner was appellant before the Consolidation Officer and Sulakhan Singh is the contesting respondent in the present writ. Sulakhan Singh filed an appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer (Annexure B) and the same was dismissed by the Settlement Officer, Sulakhan Singh then preferred an appeal against the order of the Settlement Officer and the Assistant Director vide order dated September 29, 1967, (Annexure C) accepted the same and virtually undid the order of the Consolidation Officer qua Sulakhan Singh which had been passed with his consent. This order was of course passed after hearing the petitioner and Sulakhan Singh respondent. Sulakhan Singh now feeling aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Director (Annexure C) filed a petition under Section 42 of the Act which was dismissed by the Additional Director vide order dated March 8, 1968, (Annexure E). The petitioner has challenged the order Annexure C of the Assistant Director in the present writ.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Additional Director in order Annexure 'A' dated February 23, 1966, recognised the right of the petitioner to grade third area and remanded the case to the Settlement Officer for making up the shortage in her favour. The Consolidation Officer vide order Annexure B made up the shortage in favour of the petitioner from the area of Sulakhan Singh and with the latter's consent. Sulakhan Singh having consented to the order Annexure B could not be an "aggrieved person" in terms of Section 21 of the Act. He, therefore, had no locus standi to file an appeal against the order Annexure B. The Assistant Director, therefore, erred in entertaining and accepting the appeal of Sulakhan Singh under Section 21(4) of the Act. In my opinion, the contention must prevail. Sulakhan Singh having consented to the order Annexure B could not be an 'aggrieved person' in terms of Section 21 of the Act. He, therefore, could not file an appeal under Section 21(4) of the Act which was wrongly entertained and accepted by the Assistant Director. The petitioner did file a petition under Section 42 of the Act against the order Annexure C but the same was dismissed. The order Annexure C thereby did not merge in the order passed by Additional Director Annexure 'E' dated march 8, 1968. By dismissing the petition under Section 42 of the Act, the Additional Director only declined to interfere with the order Annexure C.