- (1.) Hardarshan Singh and 22 other right-holders of village Moga Mehla Singh, Tehsil Moga, District Faridkot, have filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of certiorari, for quashing orders dated 5th April 1972 (Annexure p.2) and 22nd March 1974 (annexure p.3), respectively, passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Chandigarh, and dated 10 June 1975 (Annexure p.4), passed by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Chandigarh .
(2.) This petition has arisen in the following circumstances :- Balbir Singh son of Mohan Singh alias Bagga Singh owned lands in village Bughipur and Moga Mehla Singh. In 1968 he purchased some land in village Moga Mehla Singh, which adjoins village Bughipur. He made an application under section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragementation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and prayed that he should be allotted land in Killa Nos. 85/13/1, 13/2,14,17,18/2,23/2 and 24, which was shamlat land of Patti Rupa, in accordance with the provisions of the scheme. This application was accepted by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, on 5th April 1972, and the changes, as desired by Balbir Singh, were made. Some of the petitioners filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 288 of 1973 in this Court and a plea was raised that before passing the order dated 5th April 1972 (copy of which is Annexure P.2, appended to the petition), the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, had neither summoned the petitioners nor heard them. The writ petition was dismissed with the observations that the petitioners should first approach the Additional Director and raise this grievance before him and if the said officer found that the impugned order had been passed without impleading or summoning the petitioners, he had the power to review the same. In pursuance to this order, the petitioners filed a revision petition under section 42 of the Act before the Additional Director. It was urged that the order dated 5th April 1972, be reviewed, because before passing it they were neither impleaded as parties nor were they summoned and afforded opportunity of being heard. During the hearing of this application (described as revision) an objection was raised by the counsel of Smt. Gurdev Kaur widow of Balbir Singh, respondent, that Balbir Singh, respondent had died on 16th March 1973 and his successors-in-interest had not been impleaded as respondents by the petitioners within the prescribed period of 90 days and the application filed by the petitioners had abated. This contention found favour with the Additional Director. He held that though, the factum of death of Balbir Singh on 16th March, 1973, had come to the notice of Hardarshan Singh, petitioner, on 12th December 1973, during the hearing of the application, yet no effort was made to implead the legal representatives of Balbir Singh, within a period of 90 days. So, the application was considered to have abated and was dismissed as such, vide order dated 22nd March 1974 (copy of which is annexure P.3, appended to the petition). The petitioners filed an application for review of this order and the same was dismissed vide order dated 10 June 1975 (copy of which is Annexure P.4, appended to the petition). Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.
(3.) Mr. S.C.Kpoor, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has argued that order, Annexure P.2, was passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, in violation of the principles of natural justice, because the petitioners, who are owners of the land, in dispute, had not been implead as parties and had not been summoned and heard before passing this order.;