MIHAN SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS, PUNJAB CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHANKER and other right holders of village Poga Tehsil Kaithal, District Karnal, filed a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1949 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Chandigarh, vide his order dated 27th August, 1964, sent the original records to the Consolidation officer for parawise report. He ordered the parties to appear before him (Additional Director) on 29th October, 1964. None of the present petitioners in this writ petition was present before the Additional Director. He took up the matter again on 29th of October, 1964. None of the petitioners was present on that date also. The records do not show that the petitioners were ever made a party or were summoned by the Additional Directors On that day he ordered the Consolidation Officer to explain as to why he had failed to perform his duties and the case was fixed for 27th of November, 1964. On that date, Shri Phera Singh, Consolidation Officer was heard and his explanation considered in the absence of the petitioners. The explanation of the Consolidation Officer was considered satisfactory in certain respects. The matter was again taken up on 26th of March, 1965. A lengthy proposal had been received and the Additional Director ordered that the scheme may be considered amended for giving the relief and ordered that the case be heard on the spot by the Consolidation Officer and he may dispose the case under section 21 (2) of the Act, so that the right of appeal is not lost by the parties. Here again, the petitioners were not beard. In fact they were not even called and the scheme has been amended. It is clearly against law. Moreover, the learned Additional Director has not indicated in the order as to in what way the scheme had been amended and what specific amendments had been incorporated in the scheme. For this reason also, the impugned order is bad. I, therefore, allow this petition set aside the same and direct that the matter should be decided afresh by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana, Chandigarh, or if the Director so chooses then by some Additional Director. The petitioners as well as any other affected party should be given full opportunity before deciding the mailer.

(2.) MR . H.L. Sarin, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has conceded that the reservation of some area for the income of Panchayat is illegal as lands have been taken from small self cultivating landowners without payment of compensation and this part of the order cannot be sustained in view of the decision by their lordships in Bhagat Ram & others v. State of Punjab : (1967) 69 P.L.R. 287. This matter will also be decided after giving due opportunity to the Gram Panchayat. There shall be no order as to costs.