NIRANJAN SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Although in the writ petition, three orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities are being challenged, however, at the time of hearing arguments, it was conceded that order Annexure P.1, passed by the Additional Director was in fact in favour of one of the petitioners namely Magh Singh and is not being challenged. The other order under challenge is passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 19.6.1986, Annexure P. 2. Vide this order, the Consolidation Officer made good deficiency of area of Mohinder Singh respondent out of Khasra No. 181/10/2 (2-6). Out of this 2-0 area was given to Mohinder Singh and others. This order was challenged by Niranjan Singh in appeal and was set aside on the ground that Niranjan Singh was not given opportunity of hearing by the Consolidation Officer. The matter was taken to the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, by Mohinder Singh respondent who set aside the order of the Settlement Officer vide his order dated 13.1.1987, Annexure P.4. Thus, orders, Annexures P.2 and P.4, are being challenged by Niranjan Singh and another. The ground of attack is that Niranjan Singh was not given any opportunity of hearing when order was passed by the Consolidation Officer. The Additional Director was not justified in disposing of the matter on merits while passing the order, Annexure P.4. On the other hand, the stand of Mohinder Singh, who has appeared in person, is that Niranjan Singh was also summoned by the Consolidation Officer before the order was passed. Copy of the summons issued by the Consolidation Officer was produced as annexure R.6 in this respect. Some other orders passed by the Additional Director were also produced whereby petitions filed by Jagir Kaur, Magh Singh and Niranjan Singh were dismissed on 28.11.1985. Treasury Receipt of Rs. 100/- was also produced indicating deposit of compensation amount for the debris belonging to Niranjan Singh and others existing on the plot in dispute of which possession was required to be delivered to Mohinder Singh under the order of the Consolidation Officer.

(2.) After hearing counsel for the petitioner and Niranjan Singh respondent in person, I find that the order of the Consolidation Officer was rightly set aside by the Settlement officer as no opportunity ws given to Niranjan Singh who is alleged to be in possession of the plot in dispute over which he had made some construction. He was thus a necessary party to whom opportunity of hearing was required to given while making good deficiency in the area of Mohinder Singh and others even though the area sought to be given to Mohinder Singh and others was recorded in the revenue records as Jumla Mushtarka Malkan. Grant of hearing at the appellate stage or at the revisional stage cannot be a substitute for granting hearing at the trial stage. The order passed by the authorities without hearing the person concerned would be illegal in view of the decision of the Supreme court in Chet Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 1977 PunLJ 228.

(3.) The contention of Mohinder Singh respondent is that in fact the Consolidation Officer had issued notice to Niranjan Singh, the present petitioner, who signed on the back of the notice. This contention cannot be accepted. Photo-copy of the notice, Annexure R-6, has been perused. It is addressed to Magh Singh. At the back of the notice is thumb-impression of Magh Singh and signatures of Niranjan Singh. At the most it can be stated that Niranjan Singh attested the thumb-impression of Magh Singh. It cannot be said from these summons that Niranjan Singh knew that some adverse orders were going to be passed against him by the Consolidation Officer.