BOOL CHAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Four writ petitions, being Civil Writs 2135 of 1965, 613, 729 and 731 of 1969, are being disposed of by this comman judgment, as they are all inter-connected. All these petitions relate to proceedings of consolidation of holdings under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 hereinafter called the Act, relating to the revenue estate of village Danger Khera, tehsil Fazilka, district Ferozepore. The original scheme prepared for that village in 1961 was revoked by the State Government. In the fresh scheme, which was prepared on the 23rd November, 1964, and confirmed by the Settlement Officer on the 6th January, 1965, no provision for partition of joint Khewats in stated to have been made. Khiali Ram, one of the right-holders, who is respondent in most of these cases, filed a petition under Section 42 of the Act claiming partition of certain land comprised in Khewat Nos. 34 and 36. His application was allowed by the order of the Additional Director, dated the 21st April, 1965 (Annexure 'A'). The contention of Khiali Ram to the effect that Khewat No. 41 having been partitioned the remaining Khewats Nos. 34 and 36 should also be partitioned prevailed with the Additional Director who held that in those circumstances there was no justification for refusing the partition of the disputed Khewats. Lekh Ram, who is the son of Arjan Ram right-holder and was Arjan Ram's attorney, filed Civil Writ 2135 of 1965 in this Court on the 28th July, 1965, for quashing the order of the Additional Director, dated the 21st April, 1965.

(2.) During the pendency of the above said writ petition, the State Government by its order, dated the 27th March, 1968 (Annexure 'D'), revoked the scheme of the village in question from the valuation stage and directed that the scheme of the village should be prepared afresh. In the fresh scheme, which was prepared on the 29th March, 1968, a provision for partitioning the joint Khatas was made. Objections against that provision were preferred by at least four groups of persons, namely, by (i) Bool Chand and others, (ii) Harji Ram, (iii) Arjan Ram, and (iv) Ram Parshad. Though the Consolidation Officer recommended the acceptance of the objections and the deletion of the provision for partitioning the joint Khewats, the Settlement Officer by his order, dated the 28th November, 1968 (Annexure 'B'), dismissed the objections and upheld the provision for partition. It is against the order of the Settlement Officer, dated the 28th November, 1968, that four separate applications under Section 42 of the Act were filed by the four sets of objections mentioned above. These four sets of objections were disposed of by four separate orders, dated the 19th February, 1969 (Annexure 'C' in Bool Chand's case). The solitary ground on which the objection petitions in three cases (other than that of Harji Ram) were dismissed was that the question of keeping Khewats Nos. 34 to 37 and 41 joint or otherwise with other co-sharers on account of private partition amongst the parties had already been decided by the order of the Additional Director, dated the 21st April, 1965 (Annexure 'A') and the matter could not, therefore, be reopened, as taking of such action would be tantamount to reviewing the previous order passed under Section 42 of the Act which was not permissible in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Roop Chand V. The State of Punjab and others,1963 AIR(SC) 576 Objections of Harji Ram were, however, dismissed by the separate order of the same date (Annexure 'B' to the petition in Civil Writ 731 of 1969) on the ground that the resolution dated the 4th October, 1964, about the partition of the Khata had been thumb-marked by Harji Ram as well as his other co-sharers and in view of the consent of Harji Ram for partitioning the Khata, his request for keeping it joint at the revisional stage could not be acceded to.

(3.) In Civil Writ 2135 of 1965, it has been submitted by Mr. Surinder Sarup that the impugned order of the Additional Director, dated the 21st April, 1965 (Annexure 'A') is liable to be set aside and quashed because -