BHAG MAL Vs. RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants and respondents No. 1 are close relations. The basic dispute relates to the allotment of land during consolidation proceedings. On April 17,1978. the Director of Consolidation of Holdings passed an order (Copy of Annexure P 6) in favour of Lalji, the predecessor-in interest of the present appellants. This order was challenged by his brother, Raju, respondent No. 1 through C. W. P. No. 2958 of 1978. The learned Single Judge having allowed the writ petition, the heirs of Lalji have filed the present appeal. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) LALJI and Raju had a joint holding before the initiation of consolidation proceedings in the village. In the course of these proceedings, their land was ordered to be partitioned. According to the Scheme prepared for carrying out the consolidation of Holdings, in cases where the percentage of two rights holders was equal, the allotment had to be made in the alphabetical order according to the Dev Nagri script. The right holder whose name came first had to get his laud at the first major portion and the other right holder had to be shifted to the next place, Raju, the respondent was not allotted land in accordance with this principle in spite of the fact that in the alphabetical order, his name came before that of his brother Lalji. Instead, the land was allotted to Lalji at the first major portion. Aggrieved by this, it appears that the respondent Raju filed a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on June 18, 1975. It further appears that he filed another petition under Section 42 on August 18, 1975 Notice of the petitioner dated June 18, 1975 was issued to Lalji It is averred that on the intervention of the respectables of the village, the dispute between the two brothers was settled. Accordingly, Lalji and Raju appeared before the Director of Consolidation on October 30, 1975 and made a request that the proceedings "be dropped and that they will not now press this petition. " The Director accepted this prayer and ordered that the petition be filed A copy of this order dated October 30, 1975 is on record as Annexure P-1. It appears that the compromise between the parties fell through. As a result, the proceedings under Section 42 were revived. Vide order dated March 4, 1976, the Director accepted the claim of the Raju on the ground that "the allotment in this village should have been made according to the alphabetical order, and by doing so Shrt Raju's name should have come first for allotting him area which could follow by his brother. . . . . . . . . ". This order appears to have been passed on the petition dated August 18, 1975. A copy of the order has been produced as Annexure P2 on the record of this case. The case was remanded to the Consolidation Officer which for decision under Section 21 (2) of the Act, vide order dated July 19, 1976 (Annexure P-3) the Consolidation Officer allotted land to Raju on the first major portion while Lalji was allotted land at the second major portion. This order was challenged by Lalji in an appeal before the Settlement Officer which was dismissed by order dated July 4, 1977 (Copy Annexure P-5) Undeterred, Lalji filed a petition under Section 4 before the Director of Consolidation. Vide orders dated April 17, 1978 (Annexure P-6) the Director accepted the petition and held that the order dated March 4, 1976 (Annexure P-2) passed in favour of Raju under Section 42 was not legally sustainable He accordingly, set aside the order and directed certain changes to be made regarding the allotment of land. Aggrieved by this order, the respondent, Raju filed a C. W. P. No. 2958 of 1978. The learned Single Judge having found that the Director had no jurisdiction to review the order passed by the predecessor on March 4, 1976 and that the order was contrary to the Scheme of Consolidation, allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order. Aggrieved by this order, the appellants who are the heirs of Lalji have come up in the present Letters Patent Appeal.

(3.) MR. V. D. Gaur, learned counsel for the appellants has primarily contended that the order dated March 4, 1976 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Director was a review of the order dated October 30, 1975 (Annexure P 1) According to the learned counsel, the dispute between the parties had been settled by the order passed by the Director on October 30, 1975 and, thereafter, the Director had no jurisdiction to review the order. He also submitted that the order was in contravention of the Scheme. Learned counsel also submitted that in pursuance to the compromise arrived at between the parties, the possession of land had been exchanged and that it would not be just and fair to alter the position after the lapse of a long time.