DHARAM PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed against an order dated 1.7.1988 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent no.2 under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on a petition filed by predecessor-in-interest of respondent no.3, namely, Chhotu Ram, vide which land falling in Killa Nos.32/8/2, 13,18/1 and 18/1 and 18/2 had been transferred to Chhotu Ram and in lieu thereof Killa Nos.80/6, 7 east, 15/23/2 and 24 West were transferred to Lal Chand after withdrawing it from Chhotu Ram.

(2.) A perusal of the petition would go on to show that the repartition proceeding under Section 21(1) of the Act were carried out on 30.6.1977 on the basis of scheme proposed on 28.12.1976 which was confirmed by the Settlement Officer on 11.2.1977. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 21(3) of the Act, matter was remanded to the Consolidation Officer on 12.10.1977. Vide order dated 24.4.1978 (Annexure P-1) various amendments were made, after hearing the parties. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer whereas Chhotu Ram father of respondent no.3 was satisfied, he did not challenge that order. The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed on 25.7.1978 (Annexure P-2). Thereafter, father of respondent no.3 filed an application under Section 42 of the Act against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 24.4.1978 and a similar petition was also filed by Lal Chand, father of the writ petitioner. The petition filed by the father of the writ petition was got withdrawn on 16.9.1987 (Annexure P-4) on the ground that lot of money was spent to improve the productivity of the land given to them during repartition. However, application of father of respondent no.3 was decided on 1.7.1988 whereby the land was ordered to be transferred as mentioned above.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that against the order dated 24.4.1978, the petitioner was not satisfied and had filed an appeal under Section 21(3) of the Act which was dismissed on 25.7.1978 (Annexure P-2) whereas respondent no.3 had not filed any appeal and was satisfied with the said order. The application under Section 42 of the Act was not maintainable and even otherwise the application filed by the petitioner had also got been dismissed as withdrawn. It had further been submitted that settled position had wrongly been disturbed by passing the impugned order after a period of ten years from the date when possession was given to the right holders.