PHULLAN Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the order of the Consolidation Officer, Ludhiana, dated November 26,1981, the petitioners filed this writ petition to quash the same by issuance of writ of certiorari.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 4 filed an application on October 17, 1977, Under Section 42 of the Act before the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings. On that application, the Additional Director, by an order dated February 23,1978, directed the Settlement Officer to visit killa Nos. 112/23/2 and 23/3 and find out whether they were in depression, over assessed and whether those lands would be given to the original, owner. In pursuance of the said order, the Settlement Officer-visited the spot and he found that not only Killa Nos. 112/23/2 and 23/3 but 12/2/3 were also inferior and over assessed and in depression and accordingly restored those killa Nos. also to the original owner Smt. Phoolan and Ors. Aggrieved by the said order, of the Consolidation Officer, the petitioners and some Ors filed an appeal before the Assistant Director, Consolidation of Holdings. By his order dated July 25, 1978, the Assistant Director came to the conclusion that the Settlement Officer should not have dealt with killa Nos. 121/2/3 as he was directed only to have a spot inspection of killa nos. 112/23/2 and 23/3. Therefore, according to the Assistant Director, Consolidation of Holdings, the Settlement Officer should have confined his inspection only to killa Nos. 112/23/2 and 23/3 and he should not have passed any order in respect of killa Nos. 121/2 and 3. Thereafter, a fresh application was moved by respondent No. 4, before the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Under Section 42 of the Act, in respect of killa Nos. 121/2/3. By the impugned order dated November 26, 1981, the Additional Director confirmed the orders of the Settlement Officer dated March 31, 1978, on the ground that the Settlement Officer only corrected a mistake which took place earlier and in view of His spot inspection, the Lind in killa Nos. 121/2 and 3 was also low lying and over assessed and these lands were originally owned by the petitioners.

(3.) BUT the question in the present case is whether the order of the Additional Director dated November 26, 1981, amounts to reviewing his earlier birders dated February 23, 1978, vide Annexure P-1. In Annexure P-1, the petitioners stated that Killas Nos. 112/23/2 and 23/3 were in depression and therefore, these should be withdrawn from them. On that application, the Additional Director directed the Settlement Officer to have the spot inspection and see whether those two killa Nos. were, in fact, in depression and over assessed. When the Settlement Officer made the spot inspection in pursuance of the said order, he also found that two other killas Nos. , namely, 121/2 and 3 were also in depression and over assessed. Therefore, he passed an order dated March 31, 1978. As already stated, respondent No. 4 moved a fresh application before the Additional Director on November 30, 1978, stating that killa Nos. 121/2 and 3 were also low lying and over assessed and, therefore, the orders of the Settlement Officer dated March 31,1978, are to be confirmed. Thus, the order which came to be passed on that application filed by respondent No. 4 on November 30, 1978, cannot be termed as reviewing the order passed by the Additional Director on February 23, 1978. The order dated February 23, 1978, was never interfered with by the Additional Director. He did not change his order in respect of killa Nos. 112/23/2 and 23/3. By the impugned order he agreed with the Settlement Officer that the other two killa Nos. 121/2/3 were also low lying and depressed and over assessed. It does not mean that he reviewed1 his earlier order in respect of killa Nos. 112/23/3 and 23/3. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this writ petition.