SARWAN SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sarwan Singh petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing and setting aside the orders dated October 10, 1967 and March 21, 1968, Annexures 'A' and 'B' respectively, passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jullundur.

(2.) The facts relevant for the decision of this petition are not in dispute. Proceedings regarding consolidation of land holdings in village Muai, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jullundur, were completed in the year 1962-63, and the possessions of the repartitioned plots had since been transferred to the respective owners. One Bishna son of Basanta was allotted an abadi plot No. 62 measuring 10 marlas. Likewise, Gujjar Singh and Jagat Singh, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively, were allotted another abadi plot No. 53, which adjoined their house situated inside the lal lakir. No objection or appeal, as provided under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed by Gujjar Singh and Jagat Singh respondents for claiming that they had not been provided with any separate path for that abadi plot. On October 7, 1964, the petitioner purchased abadi plot No. 62 from Bishna for Rs. 1,500/-, and at tha time it had an enclosure wall all around. On October 1, 1966, Gujjar Singh and Jagat Singh, respondents 2 and 3, made an application under Section 42 of the Act asking for the provision of a separate path to their abadi plot. The Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jullundur, without hearing the petitioner passed the impugned order dated October 10, 1967 (Annexure A).

(3.) It is alleged by the petitioner that revision petition was belated and no cause was shown for condonation of delay in that petition. However, the Additional Director, vide the impugned order dated October 10, 1967, provided a path of the width of one karam on the eastern side of plot No. 62 running across the abadi plot of the petitioner, for the abadi plot No. 53 of respondents 2 and 3. It is further alleged that the Additional Director has withdrawn the aforesaid area of the petitioner's plot without making any provision for compensation for the same to the petitioner. Ther petitioner filed an application before the Additional Director challenging the ex-parte order dated October 10, 1967 (Annexure A). The Additional Director, however passed another order dated March 28, 1968 (Annexure B) by which he reaffirmed his previous order dated October 10, 1967 (Annexure A).