JARNAIL SINGH Vs. INDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 11th July, 1968, order Annexure P.6 was passed by the Additional Director of Consolidation under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), in which certain changes were made between the holdings of Charan Singh son of Mahan Singh, Jiwan Singh, Zora Singh, Inder Singh son of Ram Kishan and Mustarka Malkan on a petition filed by Charan Singh against Ram Kishan and others. At the time of hearing before the Additional Director, Charan Singh was present with his Advocate and besides him Inder Singh son of Ram Kishan, Jiwan Singh, Mehar Singh and Teja Singh were present. A reading of the order shows that the claim and proposal made by Charan Singh was seriously disputed by Inder Singh and Jiwan Singh, and on consideration of the entire matter the changes were ordered. The aforesaid order was impugned by Inder Singh in Civil Writ Petition, copy Exhibit D.1, which was dismissed in limine with one word 'Dismissed' by this Court on 3rd September, 1968 (copy Exhibit D.3). Thereafter Inder Singh sought review of the order of Additional Director dated 11th July, 1968 on the ground that the changes in the holdings of the parties have been wrongly made because Ram Kishan (his father) had died, and, therefore no changes should have been made. Since Inder Singh himself was present during the proceedings under Section 42 of the Act and his objections had been taken into consideration, the review petition was rejected by order dated 22nd November, 1968, copy Exhibit D.2. On 26th November, 1968, Inder Singh filed the present suit for declaration that order of the Additional Director dated 11th July, 1968 (Exhibit P.6) is illegal, null and void and should be so declared because the petition under section 42 of the Act was filed against Ram Kishan, who was dead at that time, and, therefore, all proceedings against the dead person were nullity. Since during the pendency of the suit the order of the Additional Director was implemented and possession were changed, the suit was amended and the plaintiff was allowed to add the additional prayer for possession of the original holdings, which was occupied by him before the impugned order was passed by the Additional Director.

(2.) The suit was contested by Charan Singh who pleaded that Inder Singh had become the landowner on the death of his father, and was present before the Additional Director and since full opportunity was afforded to him the order was not null and void. It was further pleaded that in view of the dismissal of the writ petition, the matter could not be re-opened by the Civil Court.

(3.) Both the Courts below held that in petition under Section 42 of the Act, Ram Kishan was impleaded as a party, who was dead at that time . On these facts aid was sought from Jahaz Khan and another v. The Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana at Gurgaon and another,1970 PunLJ 349, and Jamadar Sheoji Ram v. Daulat Bai and others, 1970 PunLJ 475, and the suit as prayed for was decreed. This is second appeal by the legal representatives of Charan Singh defendant.