COL RATTAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition has been filed to quash the order of the Additional Director, Consolidation, of Holdings, Haryana, dated January 28, 1982.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 filed an application under Section 42 of the East Haryana Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)before the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana, on the ground that the Petitioner No. 1 has been allotted land ignoring the provisions of the Consolidation Scheme and that the land allotted to him and his-co-sharer respondent No. 4 is less than their entitlement and it was much lower in percentage than the land that was allotted to petitioner No. 1. Therefore, he sought re-allotment of the land in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme.

(3.) THE first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned order amounts to review of the earlier order passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of holdings, Haryana, on the application filed by respondent No. 4 on August 14, 1975. But it is to be seen that the petitioners before the Director, Consolidation of Holdings are different. They are claiming their respective shares to be given in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme. The order passed on the application filed by respondent No. 4 does not operate as res judicata on the application filed by Hukam Singh, i. e. respondent No. 2. In fact, Hukam Singh is claiming his rights as an adopted son of Kan Kawal Singh, which is a distinct claim from that of Mussadi, respondent No. 4. Therefore, I do not think that the impugned order amounts to review of the earlier order passed on the application filed by Mussadi, respondent No. 4. In my view, the earlier order also does not debar the Additional Director from going into the question afresh on the principle of res judicata.