LAWS(P&H)-1963-1-9

BHIKHAN BOBLA Vs. PUNJAB STATE

Decided On January 04, 1963
BHIKHAN BOBLA Appellant
V/S
PUNJAB STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are four Letters Patent appeals Nos. 177, 175, 167 and 178 of 1961, which may be conveniently disposed of by one judgment as they involve a point common to all cases which has been referred for disposal by the Full Bench. The question mainly concerns the scope, legality and constitutionality of Section 36 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act ).

(2.) FOUR writ petitions had been filed in this Court under Article 226 of the constitution praying for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing the order of Director of Consolidation of Holdings. Facts are different in each case, but the differences are immaterial and all the writ petitions pivot upon the point relating to the vires of Section 36 and the violation of rule of natural justice.

(3.) THE facts as alleged in the writ petition, which has given rise to L. P. A. 177 of 1961, are that the consolidation operations started in village Atohan in Tehsil palwal of Gurgaon district in 1954-55. The petitioners are the proprietors and landowners in the village. The scheme of consolidation as envisaged under Section 24 of the Act came into force in June, 1957 and the landowners were put into possession of their new plots which had been assigned to them by the consolidation authorities, after the estate had been repartitioned in accordance with the consolidation scheme. The Consolidation operations had concluded in 1957. In 1958, the Settlement Officer disposed of all the appeals which had been preferred by the allottees of the new plots. From the order of the Settlement officer, one person had preferred an appeal to the Assistant Director which was disposed of in 1958-59. Some applications had been filed to the Director of consolidation of Holdings (respondent) under Section 42 of the Act for the modification OF revocation of the consolidation scheme. It is said that the predecessor of the present Director personally went to the village and disposed of the said applications making necessary changes in the scheme. The consolidation authorities in 1958 acted upon the changes. It is stated that the consolidation work in the said village, for all intents and purposes, was completed and the settlement Officer with respect to this village had become functus officio.