- (1.) This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 28th of February, 1968 (Annexure "E" to the petition) of the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings. Jullundur, under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and has arisen thus. Consolidation of land holdings took place in village Khanpur, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, under a scheme which provided : (1) Every rightholder shall be given land at his major portion. (2) An attempt shall be made to fit a son's plot of land along with that of the father if the rights of the other rightholders are not affected adversely. The petitioner had his "A" Grade chahi land near his well and the allotment to him in respect thereof was made at that well. Prior to the consolidation respondent Nos. 2 to 4 had their land near the village pond and allotment to them in lieu thereof was made there. They were desirous of having their allotment shifted to the place where their father was allotted land but remained unsuccessful although they knocked at the doors of various authorities under sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 21 of the Act. Ultimately they went up in revision to the Additional Director who passed the impugned order in their favour and transferred to them an area of 3 Kanals 3 Marlas from the allotment made in favour of the petitioner, his brother Hazara Singh and two others, all four of whom were given an equivalent area from the allotment made earlier in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
(2.) The impugned order is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that it goes against the scheme which the Additional Director did not amend. The ground is well taken but I do not think that this is a fit case in which the petitioner should have the assistance of this Court. His share in the disputed area is only 1/8th which works out to about 8 Marlas. The impugned order has not been challenged by his other co-sharers whose share in the disputed area is 7/8th and who appear to be fully satisfied with the impugned order. It is not denied that the share of the petitioner in the disputed land is insignificant as compared to the rest of the area allotted to him which, as already stated, was given to him at his well as desired by him. In this view of the matter I am of the opinion that he should not be allowed to disturb the impugned order which appears to be acceptable to his co-sharers in the disputed land.
(3.) In the result the petition fails and is dismissed but with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.;