CHHAJJU RAM Vs. DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner (since deceased), now represented by his legal representatives, prays for issuance of a writ to seek quashing of the order dated 24.2.1993 passed by the Director, Consolidation, Haryana.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioners submits that a perusal of the record reveals that aggrieved by order dated 02.8.1990, passed by the Consolidation Officer, respondent No. 2 filed an appeal under Section 21(3) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the "Consolidation Act") before the Settlement Officer. During pendency of the appeal, respondent No. 2 filed a petition under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act, before the Director Consolidation, which was dismissed on 31.7.1992 as pre -mature, by holding that respondent No. 2 should first pursue his appeal before the Settlement Officer. Despite this order, the petitioner filed another petition under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act before the Director, Consolidation, who, surprisingly, ignored his predecessor's order dated 31.7.1992, disregarded the pendency of the appeal before the Settlement Officer and allowed the petition in favour of respondent No. 2.

(3.) COUNSEL for respondent No. 2, on the other hand, submits that Section 42 of the Consolidation Act confers plenary power on the State, to examine any order passed or scheme, prepared during consolidation and rectify an error. The Director, Consolidation, while passing the impugned order dated 24.2.1993, has considered order dated 31.7.1992 passed by his predecessors, considered that the appeal under Section 21(2) of the Consolidation Act, was pending before the Settlement Officer but as respondent No. 2 made a statement that he withdraws his appeal, rightly examined the matter on merits and decided the petition in favour of the petitioners by directing the Consolidation Officer, Bhiwani, to allot an area of 3K -4M to respondent No. 2. The impugned order can be construed as an order passed by ignoring order dated 31.7.1992 or by exercising the power of review. The Director, Consolidation, has plenary power to call for any order passed during consolidation and rectify any error. The mere pendency of the appeal before the Settlement Officer, which was, even otherwise, withdrawn by respondent No. 2, did not prohibit the Director, Consolidation, from examining the merits of the controversy and passing an order on merits.