BIKRAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Bikram Singh and his brother Puran Singh respondent No. 3 were before the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, in a dispute over Khasra No. 143/2 measuring 1 Kanal 8 Marlas which before the consolidation operations stood in the name of their father Satnam Singh. The Consolidation Authorities, on account of the death of Satnam Singh, put the said land in the name of Puran Singh respondent No. 3 alone. The petitioner claimed that he had a half share therein having succeeded to the estate of his father to that extent. On this ground, the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jullundur, vide order dated 10.12.1993 (Annexure P-2), accepted the petition and sent the case to the Consolidation Officer by observing as follows :-

(2.) In purported compliance of that order, the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 15.7.1974 (Annexure P.3) partitioned the said Khasra number and made consequential changes. Respondent No. 3 then filed a petition under section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 against the order of the Consolidation Officer. The Additional Director accepted the petition and made certain changes which had the effect of disturbing land in Khasra No. 143/1 as well. The aggrieved petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution contending inter alia that the later order of the Additional Director dated 2.6.1977 (Annexure P.4) was in the nature of review of his earlier order dated 10.12.1973 (Annexure P.2) and that the matter as opened by the earlier order on remand had to confine within those precincts and not broadened in any manner. Deep Chand v. The Additional Director of Consolidation,1964 PunLR 318 has been cited to support the contention.

(3.) The argument raised appears to me totally misplaced. The clear mandate of the earlier order of the Additional Director afore-extracted described the parameters of the controversy. Though it is true that Khastra No. 143/2 had to be treated as joint of the parties, yet this correction had to lead in making consequent changes in their Kuras. And this is precisely what was done by the Consolidation Officer in one way to which a slight modification was made by the Additional Director in his subsequent order, Annexure P.4. Nowhere in the earlier order had he confined the controversy on remand to be merely partitioning Khasra No. 143/2. Rather it had specifically been ordered that treating that as joint changes had to be made in the Kuras. In this view of the matter, there is hardly any review involved and thus Deep Chand's case is not at all attracted. No other point has been urged.