KESHO RAM Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kesho Ram and others have challenged the order of the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, dated April 23, 1967, passed under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, on the sole ground that by the said order, a time-barred petition was allowed without giving any reason for condonation of delay and without issue of any notice to the petitioners.

(2.) Respondents 2 to 7 have not put in appearance nor have they filed any written statement. Even the State of Haryana has not put in any written statement.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the Additional Advocate General, Haryana, I find that the order of the Additional Director dated April 23, 1967, deserves to be quashed. Khasra Nos. 141/1, 141/10, 142 and 6/1, according to paragraph 9 of the petition, were allotted to the petitioners as mortgagees under Gugan, respondent No. 5, besides one more Khasra number. By the impugned order, these three Khasra numbers have been excluded from the Khudkasht holding of Gugan and have been allotted to Amin Chand, respondent No. 2 as a Ghair Maurusi under Gugan. Since there is no contradiction of allegation contained in paragraph 9, I accept that the petitioners were in possession as allottees of these three Khasra numbers and they could not have been deprived of the same without affording a hearing to them. They were not even made parties before the Additional Director. So the question of hearing could not arise.