RAM SARUP Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ram Sarup has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the legality and correctness of the order of the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, dated the 26th June, 1968 (copy Annexure 'B' to the petition).

(2.) Briefly the facts as stated in the petition are that the petitioner and respondents 2 to 6 are residents and rightholders of village Garhi Chhaju, Tehsil Panipat, District Karnal. During the repartition under Section 21(1) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Presentation of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the petitioner was allotted a block of his 'A' grade area at his first major portion while Daya Ram, respondent No. 2, was allotted his 'A' grade area at his second major portion. Feeling aggrieved from the repartition, Daya Ram filed objections which were allowed by the Consolidation Officer which adversely affected the petitioner. Dissatisfied from the order of the Consolidation Officer, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer which was rejected by him on the 24th June, 1966. A second appeal was preferred under Section 21(4) of the Act which was allowed by the Assistant Director, Consolidation of Holdings, by his order dated the Ist December, 1966 (copy Annexure 'A' to the petition). As all the grievances of the petitioner were not removed, a revision was filed by him under Section 42 of the Act against the order of the Assistant Director. Daya Ram who was also adversely affected by the order of the Assistant Director, filed a petition under Section 42 of the Act. Both these petitions were hear by the Additional Director who by the impugned order, rejected the application of the petitioner and allowed that of Daya Ram, respondent No. 2 which resulted in setting aside the order of the Assistant Director dated the Ist December, 1966. It is the legality of the order of the Additional Director dated the 26th June, 1968, which has been challenged by way of this petition.

(3.) No return has been filed on behalf of the State of Haryana nor is there any representation. Daya Ram, the only contesting respondent, is represented by Mr. B.S. Gupta. Written statement has been filed by respondent No. 2 in which the material allegations made in the petition have been controverted.