- (1.) Nikka Singh, a resident of village Kotli Ablu tehsil Mukatsar died somewhere in November, 1961, and after his death for some time the land continued to stand in his name. At the time of his death Nikka Singh owned 157 Bighas of land in village Kotli Ablu. This land was jointly owned by Mst. Jasmer Kaur widow of Nikka Singh, Nasib Kaur daughter of Nikka Singh and Kaur Singh son of Nikka Singh. During the consolidation proceedings some land was allotted in lieu of the land earlier held by Nikka Singh. In August, 1962, Jasmer Kaur, respondent No. 2, moved an application to the Additional Director of Consolidation of Holding with a prayer that her share of the land be partitioned. On this application proposals were invited from Settlement officer, Consolidation, and he submitted the report that Kaur Singh did not want the land to be partitioned. The Additional Director again asked for a proposal and on this direction suggestions were made as to which land should be given to respondent No. 2. On the basis of this recommendation of the Settlement Officer, the Additional Director of Consolidation passed the order dated July 15, 1966, by which he allotted separate kurra to Jasmer Kaur and another kurra to Kaur Singh and Nasib Kaur. The present writ petition was filed on the allegations that this order was passed behind Nasib Kaur's back and a prayer was made that the order be quashed being illegal and against the principle of natural justice.
(2.) Notice of this petition was issued to the respondents including Jasmer Kaur, respondent No. 2, but no return has been field either on behalf of the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings or Jasmer Kaur or Kaur Singh. In this situation the facts stated by the petitioner in her affidavit will have to be accepted as wholly true so far as the decision of this petition is concerned; no controversy having been raised about the truth of these facts. It has been categorically stated by the petitioner that she was not summoned by the settlement officer while he drew up the proposals for division of the khewat. It is further asserted that neither she was summoned by the Additional Director nor was any opportunity given to her by respondent No. 1, before the order Annexure 'C' was passed.
(3.) On behalf of respondent No. 2, it is asserted that in the order of the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, it is stated that the parties have been heard. It is not clear as to which parties were present before the Additional Director and which of them were heard. Moreover there being an affidavit of the petitioner that no notice was issued to her and no opportunity was given to her before the proposals were made by the Settlement Officer and before the order was passed by the Additional Director and there being no affidavit to the contrary before me it will have to be held that the recommendation of the Settlement Officer and the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, were passed behind the back of the petitioner. It has been repeatedly laid down that no order to the prejudice of any party can be passed in judicial or quasi judicial proceedings without giving an opportunity to the parties to the case. In this view of the matter I allow the petition and quash the order of the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, by which the land was partitioned. It would, however, be open to the authorities to proceed in the matter after giving proper notice to the parties concerned. On behalf of the contesting respondents it is pointed out that the petitioner had no share in the land and was therefore note entitled to any land on partition. This is a matter which can also be raised before the authorities at the time of partition, and it is for the authorities to decide whether she is entitled to any share or not.;