HET RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent and is directed against the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court rejecting the petition of the appellants under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The only contention raised before the learned Single Judge was that Shankar Lal, Soni Ram, Ram Narain, Harchand and Suraj Mal, who are the sons and grandsons of Dhanna were not heard by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, when he passed the order under section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. If a reference is made to Annexure 'B', it is clear that in the petition under section 42 of the Act, the respondent merely impleaded Het Ram, grandson of Dhanna. None of the other five were impleaded as parties. After hearing Het Ram, the Additional Director passed the impugned order whereby certain area was withdrawn from Siri Ram respondent and given to Het Ram and others, whereas the area of Het Ram and others was withdrawn and given to Siri Ram.

(3.) Before the learned Single Judge, contention was raised that the impugned order could not be sustained as the same was passed without issuing any notice to petitioners 2 to 6 and behind their back. This contention was raised in view of the provisions of section 42 of the Act. The learned Single Judge disposed of this contention with the following observations :-