DARYAO SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order of the respondent No. 1 dated January 14, 1965.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are right-holders in village Kharkara, Tehsil Gohana, District Rohtak. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are the real brothers of the petitioner. The consolidation proceedings started in the village in 1962 and a scheme was prepared under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The repartition took place in accordance with the provisions of the scheme. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed objections against the repartition before the Consolidation Officer. One objection regarding the garden area was urged before him whereas the other objections were not pressed. The Consolidation Officer dismissed the objections of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on November 5, 1962. They went up in appeal against the decision of the Consolidation Officer before the Settlement Officer who dismissed the same on April 23, 1963. They again filed an appeal against the order of the Settlement Officer to the Assistant Director but he also dismissed the same on December 21, 1963. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3, having felt dissatisfied with the order of the Assistant Director went up in revision under Section 42 of the Act before the Additional Director who accepted the same by his order dated January 14, 1965. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Additional Director. The writ petition has been contested by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

(3.) The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that an order was passed by the Additional Director firstly on December 14, 1964 and then the same order was passed on January 14, 1965. He further submits that he filed an application for obtaining the first order on February 10, 1965 which was prepared on February 18, 1965, and delivered to the petitioner. Subsequently, he made an application for the order dated January 14, 1965, on April 17, 1965, and the same was delivered to him on April 22, 1965. The copies of both the orders show that verbatim they are the same, with only one difference that the dates on them differ. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that, in fact, one order was passed by the Additional Director on January 14, 1965. He, however, by mistake, instead of giving the date of the order as January 14, 1965, stated it December 14, 1964. According to him, it was due to clerical mistake which had been rectified by the Additional Director. The case came up for hearing before me on April 24, 1973 but I did not decide the same on that date as the original files were not available. I summoned the original files and have seen the original order. The date originally mentioned on the order is December 14, 1964 but, subsequently, it has been changed to January 14, 1965; the change bears the initials of the Additional Director. The summons was issued to the right-holder for January 14, 1965. No other summons was issued for any other date. It appears that, while preparing the copies, the copying-agent made some mistake in giving the dates of the order. In the circumstances, no importance can be attached to this fact. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, no substance and is rejected.