RAM DATT Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition of writ on behalf of four co-sharers Ram Datt, Prem Sukh, Ram Parshad and the sons of Phusa Ram praying for the issuance of an appropriate writ under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution quashing the orders contained in Annexures B and C passed by respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 2 respectively.

(2.) The consolidation took place in the petitioner's village Mandhana; Tehsil Narnaul, District Mohindergarh and the allotment was made to the petitioners on repartition under section 21(1) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. Dissatisfied from that order, the petitioners filed objections under section 21, sub-section (2) of the Act which were allowed by the Consolidation Officer on 13th of January, 1965. Respondent No. 5, Nihal Singh, who is the concerned party filed an appeal under section 21(3) of the Act before the Settlement Officer which was dismissed on 28th of October, 1965, vide Annexure A. Nihal Singh then filed an appeal under section 21, sub-section (4) of the Act before the Assistant Director, Consolidation of Holdings. The petitioners state that in this appeal Ram Parshad (petitioner No. 3) alone was cited as respondent and not the other three who were not made parties and no notice had been issued to them. The Assistant Director heard the case on 28th of January, 1966, in the absence of the petitioners and allowed the appeal in terms of a compromise which was entered into before him by Bansi Singh s/o Ram Parshad, vide Annexure B. According to that compromise, certain plots were exchanged between the parties though this was said to be contrary to the scheme. The Assistant Director had agreed to the change of position in accordance with the terms of the compromise. The petitioners feeling dissatisfied from the order of the Assistant Director, made an application under section 42 of the Act which was disposed of by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, on 6th of June, 1966, vide Annexure C. Their case before the Additional Director was that they had received no notice of the hearing and had never authorised Bansi Singh and that the compromise was against the provisions of the scheme and detrimental to their interests. The Additional Director rejected the application as he thought that the petitioners were erroneously repudiating and disowning the compromise and they could not be allowed to back out. It was brought to his notice that the petitioners were not represented but the Additional Director felt that the compromise was equally binding on the petitioners who must stand by it.

(3.) It is urged on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned order is of no legal effect in so far as in the appeal before the Assistant Director, they were not made parties. In any event, Bansi Singh did not represent them even if he might be considered to have represented his father. The impugned orders of the Assistant Director and of the Additional Director were violative of the principles of audi alteram partem.