RAM PHAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The esrstwhile State of Punjab issued a notification on 1st April, 1955, under Section 14 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) declaring its intention to make a scheme for the consolidation of holdings in the estate of village Kherman in tehsil Jhajjar, district Rohtak. A Consolidation Officer was appointed and steps were taken to determine the standard area including fixing the value for the various types of land. Raje Ram, respondent No. 3, was elected a member of the Advisory Committee. It is alleged that some time in the year 1963, Raje Ram made an application under Section 42 of the Act in which he raised a plea that the land which was allotted to him inside the phirni was of low quality and had also been valued at a low figure. This application was heard by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, and was dismissed on the 13th March, 1964. According to the petitioners, Raje Ram filed another miscellaneous petition in the year 1965 before the Minister Incharge, Consolidation Department, Punjab, Chandigarh, and the petitioner raised the same objection regarding valuation and some other objections. Some other landowners also associated with him, but Raje Ram actually prosecuted this petition as a representative of the other landowners. This petition was marked to the Additional Director, Rohtak for suitable action according to law. This Officer visited village Kherman on 18th March, 1968 and passed orders annexure 'C', revoking the scheme of the consolidation from the stage of valuation. A perusal of this order shows that even earlier some complaints had been made by the landowners about the manner in which the lands in this village had been consolidated and some Consolidation Officer and other Officers of the department visited the village in order to make a spot enquiry into those complaints. The Additional Director fixed the case for 18th March, 1968, at Gohana, at the first instance and issued notice to Raje Ram only. Raje Ram and some other members of the village appeared before him in response to this notice when he declared his intention to visit the village of the petitioners for looking into the objections on 18th March, 1968. Directions were issued to the Patwari to inform the land-holders regarding the visit of the Additional Director. The Patwari Halqa served the land-holders through the chaukidar on 17th March, 1968 by beat of drum in village Kherman only about the impending visit of the Additional Director on the following day. It is alleged in the petition that the Additional Director did not adopt any procedure of recording the presence of the right-holders nor did he satisfy himself as to how many right-holders were in favour of the revocation of the scheme. The petitioners and others who were present there were "snubbed, insulted and discouraged so that they were made to keep quiet." The order passed by the Additional Director has been challenged in this petition inter alia on the grounds that :-

(2.) Raje Ram, respondent No. 3, filed a return in which it has been stated that almost every right-holder or his co-sharer was present before the Additional Director on 18th March, 1968. The enquiry conducted by this officer was an open enquiry and the case having been fixed at Gohana on 29th February, 1968, and then adjourned to 18th March, 1968, there was ample time for the right-holders to prepare the case and to place it before the Additional Director.

(3.) A perusal of the record shows that orders were passed by the Additional Director on the application filed by Shri Raje Ram. It is, however, not disputed that some right-holders also associated themselves with Raje Ram in preferring objections against the scheme. Even if Raje Ram was not entitled to file a second petition, there was no bar against the Additional Director from interfering in the matter on an earlier application made by the land-holders. Secondly, I am not inclined to attach any importance to the first two objections raised by Mr. Anand Swaroop, the learned senior advocate in view of the peculiar circumstances of this case.