LACHHI RAM Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BILASPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sarvshri Lachhi Ram and Lachhaman feeling aggrieved against the order, dated 16th September, 1977, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur Camp Hamirpur exercising the powers of the State Government have filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the order.

(2.) In the year 1960 -61, consolidation proceedings under the provisions of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 194s (hereinafter called the "Act") were started in village Gahlian, Tappa Ugialta in Tehsil Hamirpur. A scheme was prepared and thereafter repartition of the property under the scheme was done. Jai Chand, respondent No. 2 was not satisfied with the repartition, as, according to him, be had a right for allotment of khasra number 1922 -A for extension of his abadi as it was contiguous to his land and was also originally owned and possessed by him. During the repartition under the consolidation scheme it was allotted to the present petitioners. He, therefore, filed his objections before the Consolidation Officer, who dismissed the same. Against that an appeal under the provisions of section 21 (z) was filed but the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) vide Annexure A, dated 6th May, 1969 dismissed the same. He then went in revision under the provisions of section 42 to the State Government, who passed this impugned order accepting the revision petition and allotting the land in question to the respondent it is against this order of acceptance of the revision petition and allotment of the land to him, that the present petitioners have filed this writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has raised three points to assail the validity of this order. The first is that section 21 (4) of the Act provides for an appeal against an order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and, according to him, the respondent by filing a revision petition under section 42 had deprived the petitioners of their right of appeal or revision. The learned counsel for the respondent contends that there is no bar for a person who feels aggrieved against any order of the Consolidation Officer or of the Settlement Officer to avail of the remedy under section 42 without first availing of the remedy as provided under section 21 (4) of the Act. In my opinion, the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent carries weight. The State Government has got vast powers to call for the record and examine the same in any case pending before or disposed of by any officer under the Act in order to satisfy itself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed, scheme prepared or confirmed or repartition made. This power can be exercised by the State Government either suo motu or when it is moved by any person who feels aggrieved. It would be apparent from the reading of the provisions of section 42 that if a person had not availed, himself of the remedies given to him under section 21 of the Act that did not estop him from filing the revision petition under section 42 before the State Government which otherwise also can send for the record to satisfy itself with regard to the legality or propriety of any order passed by the officers under the Act. I may also refer to a case Bhagat Singh v. Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings and others, 1966 Cur LJ (Punj) 462 wherein it has been laid down. "The section nowhere says that the State Government cannot interfere in a case where the remedies provided by section 21 of the Act have not been availed of by the person, who has made an application under this section. The words at any time" used therein indicate that he can approach the State Government at any stage of the proceedings and it is not necessary for him to file objections and appeals under section 21 (i), (3) and (4) before doing so. Further, I may also refer to S. Tara Singh v. Director* Consolidation of Holdings and others, MR 1958 Punjab 302 which also says: Section 42 gives independent power to the Punjab Government to intervene suo motu at any stage of the consolidation proceedings. Section 21 of the Act does not exclude the independent operation of section 42 of the Act. The mere fact that in a particular case the Punjab Government was moved under section 42 of the Act by the respondent does not affect the position." In view of these authorities and bare reading of the provisions of section 42 which confer vast powers on the State Government it would be clear that this submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the State Government cannot exercise this power under section 42 unless the respondent had first gone in appeal under the provisions of section 21 (4) against the order of the Consolidation Officer to the Assistant Director (Consolidation), was got no merit.