NAHNU RAM Vs. RAM NARAIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in C.W. No. 1439 of 1968 are the appellants in this appeal. Their petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. One of the grounds on which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition was that all persons who were parties to the impugned order were not impleaded as parties to the writ petition. On verification, we find that all the parties to the impugned order have been impleaded as parties to the writ petition. The only difference is that while Gram Sabha was a party to the proceedings before the Assistant Director, in the writ petition the Sarpanch of the Gram Sabha has been impleaded as a party. Whether it makes any substantial difference or not, it is unnecessary for us to consider this in view of the other ground on which the writ petition was dismissed. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants before the learned Single Judge was that the original scheme made under the provisions of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, was not available before the Assistant Director and, therefore, he was incompetent to modify the scheme in part. As before us, so also before the learned Single Judge, reliance was placed on the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Hardial Singh and others v. Director of Consolidation of Holdings and others, 1970 72 PunLR 167. Two questions were referred to the Full Bench, namely :-