Muni Lal Verma, J. - (1.) THE circumstances as narrated in this writ petition and also in Civil Writ No. 2293 of 1972 regarding Ganda Singh and' another v. Punjab State etc. (hereinafter called the second petition) and which necessitated the filing of these writ petitions, may be briefly stated as under :
(2.) CONSOLIDATION of holdings commenced in village Mohi Khurd (hereinafter called the village) in the year 1954 and the same were concluded in the year 1967, the repartition having been finally sanctioned, and published. Some rightholders, who were political followers of Shri Atma Singh, the then Revenue Minister, made application to him on April 1, 1971, for revocation of the scheme. The said application was referred to the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab at Chandigarh (hereinafter called the Additional Director) and he sent the Assistant Consolidation Officer for enquiry to the village. The said Assistant Consolidation Officer submitted his report on April 20, 1971, and the Additional Director decided to revoke the scheme. He, however gave general instructions, without assigning any reason, to the Assistant Consolidation Officer and also to the Consolidation Officer to go to the village, and after satisfying each and every rightholder, to make a proposal for necessary amendment of the scheme. Thereupon, the Consolidation Officer submitted, a proposal for amendment of the scheme and the Additional Director, by his order dated December 31, 1972 (hereinafter called the impugned order) directed changes in the allotments of some of the rightholders, who included the three Petitioners, who are real brothers, and also Ganda Singh and his son Ishar Singh, who are petitioners in the second petition. All of them will hereinafter be called the petitioners. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioners moved these petitions for issuance of an order, writ or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing it (the impugned order), which was challenged as illegal, void and ultra vires mainly on the following grounds : - - (1) That the impugned order was announced orally and without writing the same ; (2) That two of the rightholders, viz., Budhu and Chanan Singh, whose allotments had also been changed, were dead on the date of the impugned order and their legal representatives had not been brought on record ; (3) That no notice, much less valid, had been given to the petitioners, or to Rattan Singh (Respondent 8 in the second petition), who is son of Ganda Singh as he (Rattan Singh) was employed in the Army ; and (4) That no variations in the allotments of the rightholders could be effected without amending the scheme and publishing the same, and that no reasons were assigned for directing the amendment of allotments of the right holders. Written statements were filed by the State of Punjab and the Additional Director as well as by Chetu Singh and Jaimal Singh respondents in this Petition. No written statement was filed in the second writ petition The material allegations of the petitioners were controverted and it was pleaded, interalia, that since the rightholders were not satisfied with the scheme and wanted its revocation, proceedings were instituted and firstly the Assistant Consolidation Officer was deputed to go to the village and make necessary proposal for amendments after contacting the rightholders and thereafter the Consolidation Officer was also deputed for the purpose and he submitted his report on April 12, 1970, and the case was then entrusted to the Additional Director for decision under section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act). It was thereafter that some of the rightholders of the village had submitted an application to the Revenue Minister for revocation of the scheme. The Additional Director did not consider it desirable to revoke the scheme as a whole and passed order on that application accordingly, though he directed that modification or amendment of the allotments of some of the rightholders, which would appear to be just, could be made. Since the matters in controversy arising between the parties in this Petition and the second petition are identical and the same are against the impugned order, both these petitions are being disposed of by one judgment.
(3.) THERE is no doubt, indeed there is no dispute, that the impugned order was passed by the Additional Director under the powers available to him under section 42 of the Act. Shri S.K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, impeached the validity of the impugned order with the contentions : - - (a) that the application made by some of the rightholders on April 1, 1971, to the Revenue Minister was barred by time ; (b) That Chanan Singh and Budhu had died and their legal representatives had not been brought on record before the passing of the impugned order ; and (c) That no notice of amendment of the allotments, as required by law, was given to the petitioners.;