LAKHMIR SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of CWP No. 4727 of 1987, CWP No. 874 of 1988, CWP No. 875 of 1988 and RSA No. 3876 of 2001 raising identical questions in respect of the same village. However, for facility of reference, the facts are firstly being taken from CWP No. 4727 of 1987 wherein the challenge is to an order passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation, on 05.05.1987 whereby an application filed by respondents No. 2 and 3 was allowed when the earlier order of Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, dated 17.03.1986 was passed for the reason that the order has been passed without granting any opportunity of hearing to them. CWP No. 4727 of 1987. On a petition filed under Section 42 of The East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act'), the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, passed an order on 25.03.1976 of partition of mushtarka malkan land. The matter was remanded to Consolidation Officer for partition of the bachat land. Thereafter, the Consolidation Officer has passed an order on 19.11.1983 in respect of partition of land of 277 proprietors. The name of the petitioners appears at Sr. No. 116 of the list (Annexure P-6) of proprietors whereas name of respondents No. 2 and 3 appears at Sr. No. 140 of the list. Annexure P-5 is the list of proprietors who were said to be present before the Consolidation Officer. The name of one Harcharan Singh appears at Sr. No. 24 of the list of proprietors present at the time of hearing.

(2.) Some of the proprietors filed a petition under Section 42 of the Act against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer where the statement by counsel appearing for the present petitioners was made to the effect that in respect of manner of partition be not disturbed which included land of the present respondents. Such Petition was partly allowed on 17.3.1986 remanding the matter to the Consolidation Officer but not in respect of the five proprietors as against them, the mode of partition was said to be not in dispute.

(3.) Harcharan Singh son of Sant Singh (present respondent) filed a separate petition under Section 42 of the Act with the grievance that the Consolidation Officer has passed an order on 19.11.1983 in their absence without giving any opportunity of hearing to them and the same be set aside.