DEVINDER NATH Vs. DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the legality and validity of order dated 4. 10. 1975 (Ann. P. 3), passed by the Consolidation Officer, Jalandhar, and order dated 21. 2. 1980 (Ann. P. 4), passed by Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Chandigarh, have been challenged.

(2.) DURING the consolidation proceedings, the petitioner was allotted abadi plot in accordance with the scheme. One Telu Ram was also allotted a plot. Aggrieved against this, the petitioner filed an objection petition before the Consolidation Officer, Garhshankar, respondent No. 2 who dismissed the same on 19. 5. 1967. Aggrieved against this order, the petitioner filed an appeal Under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short, the 'act' ). Respondent No. 1 vide order dated 28. 5. 1968, remanded the case for carving out the Abadi plots. However, respondent No. 2 vide order dated 13. 11. 1968, decided the case afresh and gave a plot to Shri Telu Ram. Again respondent No. 1 when approached in appeal, remanded the case for fresh decision keeping in view his previous order dated 28. 5. 1968. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 managed to construct a house on a plot which was to be carved out for the petitioner. Ultimately the remand case was decided by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 4. 10. 1975 (Ann. P. 3) vide which he again declined the objections and stuck to his previous decision. Aggrieved against this order, the petitioner filed a petition Under Section 42 of the Act before the Director Consolidation who dismissed the same vide order dated 21. 2. 1980 (Ann. P. 4 ).

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently nrgued that the petitioner was allotted Abadi plot with narrow strips inside the circular road with a width of 3 to 4 karams and having length of 22-26 Karams which was unfit for abadi purpose and that respondent No. 2 did not comply with the orders of respondents No. 1 vide which the case was remanded for fresh decision. He has further submitted that Telu Ram could not have been given any plot as he was not resident of village Birampur and as such, the orders Annexures P. 3 and P. 4, passed by the official respondents Nos. 2 and 1, respectively, are perverse and illegal and are liable to be set-aside.