UJAGAR SINGH Vs. ADDL DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, prayer made is for quashing order dated 14. 10. 1980 passed by the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, exercising the powers of Director Under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (herein after referred to as 1948 Act ).

(2.) PETITIONERS have averred that Ujagar Singh, petitioner filed petition Under Section 42 of the 1948 Act against order dated 17. 8. 1974 of the Consolidation Officer. Director Consolidation instead of entertaining the petition directed Ujagar Singh, Petitioner, to avail remedy of appeal. According to the petitioner, he filed appeal before the Settlement Officer and the same was decided on 19. 9. 1977. Against that order, Ujagar Singh again filed appeal Under Section 21 (4) before the Assistant Director, Consolidation of Holdings, who remanded the case to the Settlement Officer for decision afresh. It is the case of the petitioners that Durga and Kanshi, respondents 3 and 4 herein, also filed separate appeals against order dated 19. 9. 97 passed by Settlement Officer and their cases were also remanded to the Settlement Officer for fresh decision. Settlement Officer after re-considering the matter maintained order dated 19. 9. 1997. Kanshi and Durga filed appeals before the Assistant Director, Consolidation, and vide order dated 18. 5. 1978, the case was once again remanded to the Consolidation Officer for decision afresh. Petitioners have further averred that before the Consolidation Officer, through the intervention of village Panchayat, the matter was compromised and order dated 20. 9. 1979 was passed on the basis of the compromise. Petitioners have contended that respondent No. 3 Kanshi, filed petition Under Section 42 of the 1948 Act before the Additional Director, Consolidation, who vide order dated 14. 10. 1980 accepted the petition Under Section 42 of the Act and resultantly, set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that Additional Director Consolidation committed an error in law in setting aside the order of Consolidation Officer which was based on compromise between all interested parties. He also contended that order, Annexure P-3, is an ex-parte order as petitioner, Ujagar Singh was made party only in name, but he was not served at all. It is also contended that petitioner No. 2 was not made a party in the appeal and the order was not passed at her back.