D. Falshaw, C.J. - (1.) THIS is a writ petition which has been referred to a larger Bench by my learned brother far determination of the validity of certain provisions of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Second Amendment and Validation Act, 1962, Act 25 of 1962.
(2.) BEFORE the amending Act was passed Section 21(4) of the Act read: Any person aggrieved by the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) under Sub -section (3) may within sixty days of that order appeal to the State Government. Appeals filed under this sub -section were heard and decided by an officer to whom powers of the State Government were delegated, generally an Assistant Director of Consolidation. The relevant portion of Section 42 reads: The State Government may at any time for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed ....by any officer under this Act, call for and examine the record of any case pending before or disposed of by such officer and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit. The powers of the State for dealing with cases under, this section were delegated to the Director or Additional Director of Consolidation.
(3.) THE necessity for amending the Act arose out of the decision of the Supreme Court in Roop Chand v. The State of Punjab and Anr., 1963 P.L.R. 576, in a petition filed in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. The decision mainly turned on the question whether an officer to whom the powers of the State had been delegated under Section 21(4) of the Act could be regarded as an officer in the phrase "any order passed by any officer under this Act" appearing in Section 42. It was held by the majority that when Government delegates its power under the provisions of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act to an officer, and that officer in pursuance to such delegation hears an appeal and makes an order, the order of the officer is the order of the Government and the Government cannot interfere with it under Section 42 of the Act.;