HARIKE SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Lt. Harike Singh and another have filed this appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent, against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 8th January, 1980, by which their writ petition No. 766 of 1968, was dismissed. In order to appreciate the controversy, certain salient features of the case may be noticed.

(2.) There were 25 Acres of Shamlat land in Patti Nathua of village Dhanwanpur. The right-holders of that Patti were the owners of this Shamlat land. Out of this land, 12 Acres were reserved for setting up an Industrial Estate, at the time of framing of the Scheme; while the remaining 13 Acres were left for distribution amongst the eligible right-holders. At the time of re-partition, out of these 13 Acres of land, Lt. Harike Singh appellant No. 1 was allotted 9 Acres of land; whereas Mange Ram, appellant No. 2 was allotted the remaining 4 Acres of land. A number of right-holders of the village filed C.W.P. No. 1359 of 1964 against the provisions of the Scheme in general and the allotment of these 13 Acres of land to the appellants in particular. While disposing of that petition, the Division Bench in its judgment, which is Hari Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 1967 1 ILR(P&H) 577, observed thus :-

(3.) It transpires that certain right-holders, including respondents No.2 to 4, in the present appeal, had filed an application under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on 22nd June, 1964. It may be observed that C.W.P. No. 1359 of 1964 was filed by them on 2nd July, 1964. Their application under Section 42 of the Act came up for hearing before the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings. The pleas raised in the petition were that the Shamlat land of Patti Nathua be reserved for right-holders of that Patti and the land should be distributed only amongst them according to their shares, that at the time of the framing of the Scheme they were under the impression that whole of the land had been reserved and that undue advantage had been given to the appellants, as they had been allotted lands near the Industrial Estate at the cost of the right-holders. The Additional Director considered the whole matter and decided that the remaining land of Patti Nathua which had been given to the appellants, should be now distributed amongst all the right-holders in proportion to their entitlement. On the basis of this finding, the petition filed under Section 42 of the Act was allowed. Feeling aggrieved from the order of the Additional Director, the appellants filed a writ petition in this Court, which, as earlier observed, was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.