RAM PARSHAD Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the counsel for the petitioner has raised two points for quashing the orders of Assistant Director and the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, dated August 10, 1967 and August 18, 1966 (Annexures 'E' and 'G' to the petition) respectively, passed under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) As regards the order of the Assistant Director, Annexure 'E', the point raised by Mr. Gaur, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the provisions of the scheme have been relaxed without following the procedure laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Hardial Singh and others V. Director of Consolidation of Holdings and others, 1970 72 PunLR 167, and followed in Bhagwan Dass and others V. The State of Punjab and others, 1975 PunLJ 348, Rajinder Singh and others V. The State of Punjab and another, 1976 PunLJ 133 and Chet Singh V. State of Punjab and others, 1977 PunLJ 228. According to the dictum laid down in the aforesaid decisions if the Assistant Director, in exercise of his powers under Section 42 of the Act thought of amending or relaxing the scheme, he had to bring this fact specifically to the notice of the parties adversely affected therefrom and only after granting opportunity to them, could pass the appropriate orders. The fact that the aforesaid procedure was not followed, has not been controverted by Mr. Ram Sarup, counsel for respondents 3 to 5 against whom the relief has been claimed in this writ petition. I find merit in the contention and hold that the scheme could not be relaxed without affording opportunity to the petitioner and without hearing him. Hence this order is illegal and deserves to be quashed on the aforesaid ground.

(3.) As regards the order of the Additional Director (Annexure 'G'), the challenge to this order is on the basis of the facts stated in paragraph 8 of the amended writ petition, to the effect that this order has been passed without any notice or affording an opportunity of being heard. The reply of respondents 3 to 5 to this paragraph is that they pleaded ignorance regarding notice to the petitioner, that the petitioner was not adversely affected by the impugned order and that the Additional Director should have been made a party to the writ petition whose order was sought to be challenged.