INDER SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners and respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are right-holders in village Khanna, Tehsil Zira in the District of Ferozepore. The four petitioners are real brothers. They owned land in joint khata in equal shares. Consolidation of holdings was to be carried out in the village and in the repartition proceedings conducted under Section 21 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the petitioners were allegedly given inferior quality of land. They filed objections before the Consolidation Officer who granted them some relief vide his order (Annexure 'C') dated February 3, 1970. The petitioners again went up in appeal before the Chief Settlement Officer under Section 21(3) of the Act, who vide his order (Annexure 'd') dated June 23, 1970, allowed their appeal and allotted them their old area. Respondent No. 3 thereafter, filed an appeal before the Assistant Director, Consolidation of Holdings, under Section 21(4) of the Act, which was dismissed. He then filed a revision petition under Section 42 of the Act before the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, which wa allowed vide his order (Annexure 'G') date December 4, 1970. The material portion of his order reads as under :-

(2.) I am not impressed with the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the first point. It is, no doubt, true that the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, is an authority exercising quasi-judicial functions and such an authority is expected to pass a speaking order which indicates that it has applied its mind to the facts of the case. However, such an authority is not expected to write elaborate judgments which are usually written by ordinary Courts. Respondent No. 1 was impressed by the fat that some major portions of land belonging to Sher Singh had been given to the petitioners before him, which should not have been done. On this basis he appears to have interfered with the order passed by the authorities subordinate to him. The consideration which impelled respondent No. 1 to interfere in revision is not extraneous to the scope of the Act and the order passed by him cannot be set aside on the basis of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The first point raised by him is hereby overruled.

(3.) The second submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is worthy of consideration. It is not disputed that Kundan Singh was not at all impleaded as a party in the revision petition and yet an order adversely affecting his interests has been passed. On behalf of the respondents, it has been submitted that since one of his brothers was present before respondent No. 1, Kundan Singh had been effectively represented. It has also been submitted that even before the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer, Kundan Singh petitioner was represented by his brother Inder Singh and he, having received the benefit of such a representation, could not be allowed to raise this argument in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.