SAHI RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case would show that the writ petition is wholly misconceived. Consolidation proceedings took place somewhere in 1960, in pursuance of which re-partition was made amongst the rightholders. Sahi Ram petitioner has not shown if he was allotted any land in those proceedings.

(2.) In 1962 Ram Kanwar and his two brothers filed a petition under section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act'), claiming proper allotment to them on the basis of their major portion. Amongst others two persons of the names of Sahi Ram were impleaded as respondents to that petition, but we are concerned with Sahi Ram son of Pokhar, who is the petitioner in this petition. Sahi Ram son of Pokhar was representing Panna Shamilat. By order dated 3rd July, 1964 (Annexure P.3), the Additional Director of Consolidation of Holdings ordered certain changes between Shamilat Deh and Smt. Parbati mother of Ram Kanwar and the other two applicants, before him as they had succeeded to the estate of Smt. Parbati. Sahi Ram son of Pokhar was present during the hearing of that case. He took no steps to impugn the order Annexure P.3. While implementing order Annexure P.3, wrong mutation was sanctioned. Since order Annexure P.3 was not correctly implemented, Ram Kanwar and his two brothers again moved a petition under section 42 of the Act. Sahi Ram was again present. The mistake in the mutation was detected and by order dated 20th April, 1978 (Annexure P.2) the Director issued a direction to correctly implement the order Annexure P.3. By order dated 20th June, 1978 (Annexure P.1), order Annexure P.3 was correctly implemented. While deciding the matter under order Annexure P.1, Sahi Ram son of Pokhar was not present, although other co-sharers of the Shamilat Panna were present. The aforesaid order has been impugned by Sahi Ram son of Pokhar and the main ground is that he was not heard before passing orders Annexures P.1 to P.3.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that Sahi Ram son of Pokhar petitioner was present when Annexures P.2 and P.3 were passed. Therefore, orders Annexures P.2 and P.3 cannot be quashed.