PALI RAM Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a resident of village Bareta, tehsil Mansa, district Bhatinda, where he held a joint khata with Parkash Chand son of Nauharia Mal in equal shares. Out of this khata some fields were in the possession of Parkash Chand as co-sharer while others were in the possession of the petitioner without getting the joint khata partitioned, Parkash Chand sold specific field numbers in the khata which were in his possession as co-sharer to Bakshi Singh respondent 3, and thus Bakshi Singh came into possession of those fields as a co-sharer with the petitioner. The consolidation proceedings were held in the village and in the course of those proceedings the joint khata between the petitioner and Bakshi Singh, respondent 3, was partitioned, taking into consideration the quality of the land and, each party was allotted land according to the value of the land of his share. The lands of the two co-sharers were demarcated so that each party could take possession of the land allotted to him. No objection to the partition of the joint khewat was taken by any person.

(2.) Bakshi Singh, respondent 3, and his son Gurdial Singh respondent 4, filed certain objections as regards some plots to be allotted to them in repartition but those objections were rejected by the Consolidation Officer. Respondent 4 filed an appeal against that order before the Settlement Officer which was dismissed by order dated September 15, 1964. No further appeal was filed to the Assistant Director Consolidation of Holdings, but a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act (hereinafter called the Act), was filed which was granted by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Hissar, by order dated April 6, 1965. The date of the filing of the petition is not indicated in the order. In this order, the learned Additional Director, held that when the repartition was carried out, it was decided to give to Bakshi Singh one-half share in both the khewats which were jointly owned by him and Pali Ram petitioner. The standard value of the area to which Bakshi Singh was entitled came to 16 Kanals 4 Marlas but he was given 12 Kanals 12 Marlas of land. He then goes on to state -

(3.) Bakshi Singh respondent died during the pendency of the writ petition on March 29, 1966. An application for bringing his legal representatives on the record was filed on October 26, 1966. One of his legal representatives, that is, Gurdial Singh (son) was already on the record as respondent 4. On February 3, 1969, when that application came up for hearing before me, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the writ petition had abated as the application for bringing on record the legal representatives of Bakshi Singh respondent had been not filed within 90 days of his death nor was an application for setting aside the abatement made within 60 days of the abatement. The application for bringing the legal representatives on record was made more than 150 days after the death. I ordered that this matter would be decided by the Bench hearing the writ petition.