DEEPA Vs. DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of our learned brother dismissing a petition for the issue of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. Pursuant to a scheme made under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, the petitioner was allotted Killa No. 44/3/2 by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation of Holdings. The mutation was also sanctioned by the Consolidation Officer in December, 1955. The Gram Panchayat of Karor filed a revision petition before the Additional Director under Section 42 of the Act. The Additional Director allowed the revision petition filed by the Gram Panchayat on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce before him the copy of the order of the Settlement Officer in regard to the allotment of Killa No. 44/3/2. The order of the Additional Director was questioned by the petitioner in the Civil Writ Petition No. 380 of 1963. Grover J. allowed the writ petition observing that it was not the fault of the petitioner that he failed to produce a copy of the order of the Settlement Officer. The order of the Additional Director was quashed and he was directed to decide the matter afresh after examining all the necessary records. When the matter went back before the Additional Director, the petitioner and the Gram Panchayat entered into a compromise by which it was agreed that the petitioner should be given some other land in place of Killa No. 44/3/2 which was stated to be situated on a public path. It was also agreed that the Gram Panchayat should construct a wall around the land freshly allotted to the petitioner. For one reason or the other, the Gram Panchayat failed to construct the promised wall. Instead, the Gram Panchayat filed another revision petition before the Additional Director under Section 42 of the Act. Once again the Gram Panchayat expressed to the Additional Director that it was ready to construct the wall as originally promised. The Additional Director thought it better that the Gram Panchayat should be directed to pay the value of the proposed construction to the petitioner so that he might raise the construction himself instead of relying upon the Gram Panchayat to do so. He, therefore, made an order that the Gram Panchayat should pay Rs. 2,000/- to the petitioner and that the land in Killa No. 44/3/2 should be excluded from the holding of the petitioner. Aggrieved by his order, the petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 840 of 1973, which was dismissed by our brother P.C. Jain, J.

(2.) In this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Additional Director had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order in the absence of a finding that the allotment made by the Settlement Officer was contrary to the Scheme. In support of his argument, the learned counsel relied upon a decision of J.N. Kaushal, J. in Nar Singh and others v. The State of Punjab,1966 PunLR 690. We are unable to agree with the submission of the learned counsel. Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act imposes no such limitation on the exercise of revisional powers. The revising authority is entitled to call for and examine the record to satisfy itself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed, scheme prepared or confirmed or repartition made by any officer under the Act and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit. In order to enable a revising authority to exercise revisional powers, it is not necessary that the revising authority should first come to the conclusion that the subordinate authority had acted in contravention of the provisions of the scheme made under the Act. The order of allotment even if made within the framework of the scheme may work hardship on some persons and in such an event, it would be open to the revising authority to relieve the hardship. In other words, there is no bar against a revising authority improving upon the allotment made by the subordinate authority even if the subordinate authority had acted within the framework of the scheme. That is precisely what the revising authority has done in the present case. If the allotment made by the Settlement Officer were to stand, the public would suffer great hardship as there would be an obstruction to the public pathway. Therefore, the revising authority thought it fit to exclude the Killa in question from the holding of the petitioner. Previously, the Gram Panchayat had undertaken to build a wall around the land to be allotted to the petitioner, but as they had failed to that, the revising authority thought it better to direct the Gram Panchayat to pay the cost of such proposed construction. To the extent that he directed the payment of Rs. 2,000/- to the petitioner, the order was in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) We are unable to say that the Additional Director acted without jurisdiction. The case cited by the learned counsel is of no real assistance to him. In that case, the Additional Director made an order not with a view to carry out the objects of the Act, but with a view to punish the rightholders for having tried to gain an unfair advantage by tampering with some records. In the case before us, it cannot be said that the Additional Director acted with any oblique or irrelevant motive. We, therefore, confirm the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismiss the appeal. I agree.