HARBANS SINGH Vs. DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the order of Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana, dated 22nd April, 1982 petitioners filed this writ petition.

(2.) ONE Chhano daughter of Harke filed an application Under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 for setting aside the orders passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 20. 11. 1973 and the Consolidation Officer dated 19. 10. 1974 on the ground that the said orders came to bepassed in her absence. The Additional Director, Consolidation vide impugned order came to the conclusion that Chhano, the third respondent was not a party to the previous proceedings and the previous proceedings proceeded in her absence and, therefore, the order dated 19. 10. 1974 passed by the Consolidation Officer is liable to be set aside and accordingly he set aside the said order and remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer for determination of the rights in accordance with the scheme.

(3.) THERE is no dispute that the mother of the third respondent Indro and her brother Siri Lal were parties to the earlier proceedings before the Settlement Officer and also the Consolidation Officer. It is not alleged by Chhano that earlier there was any partition of the property among the heirs of her father Harke. There was effective representation of the estate of Harke before the Settlement Officer as well as the Consolidation Officer and the third respondent who is only one-third shareholder cannot seek re-opening of the entire matter after a lapse of seven years: It is unbelievable that Chhano had no knowledge of the proceedings before the Settlement Officer and Consolidation Officer when her mother and brother were actively participating in the proceedings and defending their interests and also the interest of third respondent Chhano. Thus, to my mind, the application filed by Chhano before the Additional Director, Consolidation in the year 1981 is filed only with an intention to prolong the matter and re-open and unsettle the settled issues. Finality is one of the foundations of legal jurisprudence. Settled matters cannot be re-opened at the instance of the party whose interests were properly protected by her mother and brother. In this view of the matter I am of the view that the order of Additional Director, Consolidation dated 22nd April, 1982 is liable to set aside.