- (1.) This petition has arisen out of the consolidation proceedings carried out in village Wazirpur, Tehsil Jhajjar, District Rohtak. Certain plots for the extension of Abadi were allotted to the petitioners and other right-holders on 12th May, 1960, by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. A copy of the proceedings regarding partition of the land is annexed with the petition as Annexure 'A'. The petitioners being dissatisfied with the repartition of plots, filed an objection petition before the Consolidation Officer who vide his order dated 13th July, 1960, drew fresh lots and the petitioners were allotted plots located in Killa Nos. 215, 212 min North. Respondent No. 4 filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer who set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 31st January, 1961 (Annexure 'C'). Dissatisfied by the order of the Settlement Officer, the petitioners filed an appeal to the Assistant Director under Section 21(4) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter called 'the Act') who vide his order dated 21st May, 1961 (Annexure 'D'), dismissed the same. The petitioners filed further revision petition before the Additional Director who accepted the same and set aside the order of the Settlement Officer and the Assistant Director vide his order dated 30th May, 1963 (Annexure 'e'). On the petition filed by Bhola respondent, this Court set aside the order (Annexure 'E') of the Additional Director on the ground that he could not exercise the powers of the State Government second time as these were exercised by the Assistant Director. Then L.P.A. 131 of 1966 was filed in this Court. It is in these circumstances that the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners to impugn the orders, Annexures 'A', 'C' and 'D' of the respondents.
(2.) Mr. U.D. Gaur, learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that the Assistant Consolidation Officer's order (Annexure 'A') does not mention the particulars of the plots allotted to each right-holder and there is no date on the record to show the allotment of specific plot to the various right-holders and that resolution No. 35 to which a reference has been made in Annexure 'D' by the Assistant Director, was also passed behind their back. Moreover, it relates to the proceeding from 27th May, 1960 to 20th May, 1961 and the Assistant Consolidation Officer had passed the impugned order (Annexure 'A') on an earlier date. The respondents have not filed any return in spite of service. Hence the averments made in the writ petition go unrebutted and I take it as correct. Mr. Gaur says that the petitioners and respondent No. 4 are still in possession of the plots which were given in consequence of the order dated 30th May, 1963 (Annexure 'D') passed by the Additional Director was implemented. In L.P.A. No. 131 of 1966, the operation of the order of the learned Single Judge was stayed. The order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer does not mention any number of plots, it only mentions the names of the right-holders and it is not clear as to which plot is allotted to him. Moreover, resolution No. 35 to which the reference has been made by the Assistant Director is passed behind the back of the petitioners as they were not present. The Assistant Consolidation Officer has also no authority under the Act to make any order as has been made vide Annexure 'A' to this petition. I have gone through the whole Act. There is no mention of Assistant Consolidation Officer in the Act. It is only the Consolidation Officer who has to make repartition under Section 21(1) of the Act and before whom the objection under Section 21(1) of the Act and before whom the objections are also filed under Section 21(2) of the Act. There is no material on the record to show that Assistant Consolidation Officer had any Authority in law to pass such an order. The petitioners and respondent No. 4 are in possession of their respective plots for the last more that 14/15 years and it would amount to unsetting the settled matters if the Annexures 'A', 'C' and 'D' are not quashed.
(3.) For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders (Annexures 'A', 'C' and 'D') are quashed. There will be no order as to costs.;