BHAGWAN DASS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that falls for determination in Civil Writ Nos. 1399 of 1965 and 3300 of 1969 is as to whether the Orders, Annexure 'H' dated 30.4.1964 passed by Assistant Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Rohtak, effecting changes in the scheme of consolidation, could be passed.

(2.) Before dealing with the question posed, at this stage a short history of these petitions may be noticed. In the first instance, Civil Writ No. 1399 of 1965 was filed, which came up before Tuli, J., who dismissed the same on 23.5.1969, without going into the merits of the case, on the ground that the petitioners having not challenged the orders passed subsequent to the impugned orders and having availed the chance before the authorities which passed the subsequent orders, are not entitled to agitate against the impugned orders in this Court. The petitioners challenged this judgment in L.P.A. No. 338 of 1969 which was allowed and the case remanded for decision on merits. In the meantime, in order not to take any chance, the petitioners had filed the Civil Writ No. 3300 of 1969 challenging therein apart from the impugned order, such other orders, as well, as had been passed subsequent thereto. This writ was also ordered to be disposed of, along with the previous writ, by the Single Judge. The facts alleged in the Civil Writ No. 1399 of 1965 have been mentioned by Tuli, J., in his judgment and these can be reproduced in his own language :-

(3.) Mr. N.L. Dhingra, learned counsel for the petitioners, on the strength of decision of this Court reported in Mansa Ram v. State of Punjab and others, 1970 PunLJ 391 canvassed that the Assistant Director, Consolidation of Holdings had no jurisdiction, while exercising powers under Section 21(4) to amend the scheme, which could be done only in the exercise of powers under Section 42 of the Act.