GURDEV KAUR Vs. HARDARSHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This letters patent appeal is directed against he order of the learned Single Judge dated 9th February, 1983, whereby the order passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, dated 22nd March, 1974, Annexure P-3 and the order dated 10th June, 1975, Annexure P-4, were quashed.

(2.) One Balbir Singh son of Mehnga Singh, filed a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, which was allowed on 5th April, 1972, vide Annexure P-1. The said order was challenged in this Court by way of writ petition No. 2883 of 1973, which was dismissed with the directions that necessary application for review be made to the Additional Director itself, if the orders were passed without giving any hearing to them. Consequently, the writ petitioners filed a review petition on 13th September, 1973. Meanwhile, the said Balbir Singh son of Mehnga Singh died. This fact was brought to the notice of the writ petitioners. In spite of that, they failed to implead the legal representatives of the deceased and consequently their application for review was dismissed vide order dated 22nd March, 1974, Annexure P-3. Later on, they moved a review application seeking review of the order dated 22nd March, 1974, which was also dismissed on 10th June, 1975, Annexure P-4. The said two orders were challenged by the writ petitioners by way of the writ petition primarily on the ground that the review application could not be dismissed as having abated because the provisions of order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called the Code), were not applicable to those proceedings and as regards the order dated 10th June, 1975, the same was without jurisdiction, as the Additional Director had no jurisdiction to review his earlier order dated 22nd March, 1974. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the provisions of Order 22 of the Code were not applicable to the proceedings as such and, therefore, the application for review could not be dismissed as having abated. As regard the order dated 10th June, 1975, Annexure P-4, the learned Single Judge found that the said order was without jurisdiction as the Director had no powers to review the earlier order dated 22nd March, 1974. Consequently, both the orders were quashed and the case was remitted for fresh decision after hearing both the parties and any other person who may be legitimately interested. It was also directed that the name of Balbir Singh son of Mohan Singh alias Bagga Singh is deleted from the array of the respondents as requested by Mr. Sarin because no relief is claimed against him.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order dated 22nd March, 1974, was virtually passed as the writ petitioners failed to implead the legal representatives of the deceased Balbir Singh son of Mehnga Singh and, therefore it could not be said to have been dismissed as abated. It was further submitted that as regards the order dated 10th June, 1975, the case set up by the writ petitioners was that they did not seek any relief against Balbir Singh son of Mehnga Singh, but sought relief against Balbir Singh son of Mohan Singh. Not only that, argued that learned counsel, before Director, Consolidation the writ petitioners were not prepared even to argue the question of impleading the legal representatives of Balbir Singh son of Mehnga Singh and, therefore, they could not be allowed to make out a new case for the first time in the writ petition. It was also pointed out that the appellant had taken possession of the land allotted to her vide order dated 5th April, 1972, in the year 1973 and was in possession thereof till today. That being so, no injustice can be said to have been caused to the writ petitioners as to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.