SOMBIR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of C.W.P. No. 8756 of 1989 as well as C.W.P. No. 12574 of 1989, as these are cross petitions.

(2.) Briefly facts of the case (facts are being taken from C.W.P. No. 8756 of 1989) are that the consolidation of holdings in the village took place in the year 1960 and Khasra No. 16/9/3 was kept for use as cremation grounds by the right-holders and Khasra No. 16/9/1 was kept as ' Hadda Rodi'. Ram Sarup father of the petitioner Sombir and Nanha Ram brother of Ram Sarup, had their lands near the above mentioned Khasra Numbers. They were the joint holders of the holdings. After the death of Ram Sarup, Sombir petitioner and his brother Hira Singh stepped into his shoes.

(3.) It is alleged that Nanha Ram and Ram Sarup constructed their houses in their land after the consolidation of holdings. It is on the record that Nanha Ram had moved a petition under Sec. 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), before the Assistant Director, Consolidation praying that the cremation ground and Hadda Rodi should be shifted away from their holdings. However, the said application was dismissed on 1st July, 1970. A copy of the order has been placed on the record as Annexure R2/3, with the written statement. Thereafter, another application was made by same Nanha Ram under Sec. 42 of the Act before the Additional Director in the year 1979, with the same prayer. The said application was also dismissed on 8th April, 1986 (Copy Annexure R2/4 with the written statement). Yet another petition was made under Sec. 42 of the Act before the Additional Director, this time by petitioner Sombir. The prayer was the same as had been made by Nanha Ram in his earlier applications. This petition was allowed by the Additional Director vide order dated 25th Aug., 1988 (Annexure P. 1) and the cremation grounds as well as Hadda Rodi was ordered to be shifted from that place to another place. Rattan' Singh, respondent, moved an application before the Additional Director that order, Annexure P. 1 should be set aside as the same had been passed ex-parte, and further Sombir had not disclosed that earlier two applications by his co-sharer Nanha Ram had already been dismissed by the Additional Director. The Additional Director vide order dated 9th May, 1989, partly accepted the petition of Rattan Singh respondent and after noticing that there were two earlier orders of the Additional Director declining the prayer and after hearing the parties and other right-holders, came to the conclusion that there was no justification to shift the cremation ground, but he found the shifting of the Hadda Rodi to be justified. Both Sombir and Rattan Singh dissatisfied with this partial acceptance of the petition by the Additional Director, filed two separate writ petitions as noticed in the opening paragraph of the judgment. The prayer of Sombir is that Additional Director should have dismissed the application of Rattan Singh whereas the prayer of Rattan Singh is that the Additional Director should have accepted his application in its entirety.