(1.) THIS appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent involves the interpretation of Section 29 of the Patiala and East Punjab States Union Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 2007 Bk (hereinafter referred to as the Pepsu Act). This S.Runs as follows:
(2.) IN the case before us on 3rd July, 1956, a notification under Sub -section (1) of Section 14 of the Pepsu Act was published in the Official Gazette. This notification was not published in the village till 15th October, 1957. Meanwhile on 20th August, 1957, the Appellant, Ranbir Singh, made transfer of certain land belonging to him in the village concerned to his sons by way of gift and mutations were effected. In dealing with the question as to the location of the major portion of Ranbir Singh etc., the Additional Director took into consideration these mutations. The party adversely affected, namely, Mangal Singh, filed Civil Writ No. 183 of 1966 challenging this action on the ground that, in view of Section 29 of the Pepsu Act, no alienation of land could be taken into consideration for the purpose of consolidation without the sanction of the Consolidation Department. It is a common case that the Consolidation authorities did not apply their mind to the question whether it was a fit case for granting the sanction or not, but it was felt by the Additional Director that, inasmuch as the alienation took place before the notification was actually published in the village, Section 29 of the Pepsu Act did not apply and, consequently, there was no question of granting any sanction.
(3.) IT is now well settled that consolidation proceedings cannot be treated to be pending unless at least the Consolidation Officer is appointed. See in this respect Nanga and Ors. v. The Additional Director of Consolidation of Holdings and Ors., 1965 C.L.J. (Pb.) 31. That was a case under Section 32 of the Punjab Act, which is in the same terms as Section 31 of the Pepsu Act. Section 32 of the Punjab Act is as follows: