AJIT SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 28.6.1984, Annexure P-2 in petition No. 139 of 1984 filed by Mahla Singh son of Kishan Singh and dated 11.10.1984, Annexure P-3, in petition No. 162 of 1984 (questioning order dated 28.6.1984, Annexure P-2) filed by Ajit Singh, Gurdial Singh and Daljit Singh etc., passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, respondent No. 1 under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation Act), 1948 (for short "the Act").

(2.) BRIEF facts are that in accordance with the scheme prepared under Section 20 of the Act, repartition of the village Kotkapura was carried out in the year 1964-65. The dispute between the parties relate to path No. 2513 shown as A B C D E in the plan attached with the petition as Annexure P-1, which was approved in the village scheme. During partition, the land from points A to B was alloted to Niranjan Singh, Chhajju and Dharam Singh son of Kharak Singh etc. Neither of them challenged the scheme of the path at the time when repartition proceedings were carried out or thereafter and the said portion of land, which leads to points C.D.E. onwards continued to be used by them and the other residents of the village. About five years of the repartition, aforesaid Naranjan Singh and Chhaju Singh sold their land to Gurnam Kaur wife of Mahla Singh and his sons Major Singh, Balwinder Singh, Sukhminder Singh and Jallandhar Singh whereas Dharam Singh son of Kharak Singh exchanged his land with Mahla Singh on 27.12.1971. Neither Mahla Singh nor his wife or sons preferred any revision against the existing path A.B. as they, being not the right-holders in the village at the time of repartition, had no locus standi to do so.

(3.) NONE has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2 nor has any written statement been filed on his behalf. No written statement has been filed even on behalf of respondent No. 1.