HAKAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On November 28, 1956 Shri Kishan Partap Singh, Director of Land Records, Punjab (with powers of Provincial Government) under Section 21(4) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, partially accepted the appeal of Wasakha Singh respondent No. 4 and cancelled the exchange of certain areas.

(2.) Against the above said order, a revision petition was filed before the State Government by Bhagwan Singh respondent No. 3 under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act (hereinafter called the Act). The revision petition was filed after more than 5 years of the Director's order under Section 21(4) of the Act. This revision petition was allowed by the Additional Director on April 10, 1962 and certain changes were directed to be made in the scheme. Copy of the order is Annexure 'B' to the writ petition. It is this order (Annexure 'B') which is impugned in this petition by Mr. K.K. Chopra Advocate on one solitary ground. It is argued by him that according to the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Deep Chand and another V/s. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jullundur, 1964 66 PunLR 318, the State Government could not exercise powers under the Act as it prevailed prior to its amendment (on 13th December, 1962) only once. He argues that the order of the Additional Director (Annexure 'B') has to be struck down unless it is saved by Section 11 of the Validation Act (Punjab Act No. 25 of 1962).

(3.) There is no doubt that the impugned order has been passed by the Additional Director under Section 42 of the Act. It is also admitted that the order which has been reversed by the impugned order was passed under Section 21(4) of the Act. But the order under Section 21(4) in the instant case was itself passed by the Director and not by an Assistant Director. The impugned order under Section 42 was therefore not an order against that of the Assistant Director of Consolidation. This is one of the conditions precedent contained in clause (a) of Section 11 of the Validating Act in order to apply the provisions of that section. The impugned order therefore does not fall within that clause and is obviously not saved by the Validation Act. In fact the learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to argue that the impugned order does fall within clause (a) of Section 11 of the Validation Act No. 25 of 1962. What is argued by Mr. Agnihotri, counsel for the State, is that keeping in view the intention of the amending Act, an enlarged interpretation should be placed on Section 11, quoted above, and that the words 'against an order of the Assistant Director of Consolidation' should not be read for the purpose of this case.