GURNAM SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAYER in this writ petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the orders dated 5.4.1984, 21.12.1983 and 31.7.1981 (Annexures P-8, P-5 and P-2) respectively, passed by respondent no. 1, namely, the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Chandigarh.

(2.) TWENTY five years after the conclusion of consolidation proceedings, respondent no. 2, filed a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') praying that the deficiency in the land allotted to him be made good. Respondents no. 3 to 6 were arrayed as respondents. Vide order dated 31.7.1981, the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, accepted the application and held that respondent no. 2 was entitled to additional land of 4 std. kanals and 1 std. marla. Respondents no. 3 to 6, though respondents in the application, were also held entitled to 3 std. kanals and 4 std. marlas. Consequently, Killa No. 94/21 measuring 7 kanals 12 marlas and Killa No. 97/1 measuring 1 kanals and 10 marlas was allotted to respondent no. 2, whereas Killa No. 97/1 measuring 6 kanals 2 marlas was allotted to Darbara Singh, Ujagar Singh and Kessar Singh etc. respondents no. 3 to 6, from land reserved as "Jumla Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Deh".

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioners submits that challenge in this writ petition is primarily to the order dated 31.7.1981 (Annexure P-2). It is submitted that if there was any deficiency in the allotment to respondent no. 2, the Additional Director before arriving at any conclusion in respect thereof was required to issue and serve notices upon the proprietors, who are co-sharers, in the Jumla Mushtarka Malkan land. The impugned order Annexure P-2, discloses that no notice, whatsoever, was served upon any of the proprietors, whether collectively or individually. It is also submitted that pursuant to the application Annexure P-1, respondent no. 2 prayed for making good the deficiency, in his allotment. The Additional Director, Consolidation, however, allotted land to respondents no. 3 to 6, who were arrayed as respondents in the application and had not prayed for allotment. Reliance for the argument that the petitioners were required to be heard and a notice should, therefore, have been issued is placed upon Bachan Singh and others v. The Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Chandigarh, 1991 PLJ 275.