- (1.) The petitioners are the land-holders of village Kulrian, Tehsil Mansa, District Bhatinda. They purchased land measuring 22 bighas 3 biswas - 12 bighas, 13 biswas in Khasra No. 1509 and 9 bighas, 10 biswas in Khasra No. 1510 on June 15, 1963, in a public auction for Rs. 5650/-. The sale was confirmed on July 20, 1963, and the sale certificate issued. The consolidation started in this village in accordance with the scheme and the above-mentioned land was given to the petitioners in repartition proceedings. Respondents 2 to 4 were also allotted land by the Consolidation Officer. No objection or appeal was ever filed by any party before the Consolidation Officer, the Settlement Officer or the Assistant Director. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 only filed an application under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, (hereinafter called the 'Act'), before the Additional Director (respondent 1) who allowed the same vide order dated March 21, 1966, (Annexure 'D'). It is against this order that the present petition has been filed.
(2.) I have perused the petition and also the impugned order (Annexure 'D') which was passed by the Additional Director on March 23, 1966. The petitioners were never made parties to the application under Section 42 of the Act which was before the Additional Director. Column (c) of the application under Section 42 of the Act deals with the name, description and address of the persons who are likely to be affected. Against this column, the names of the petitioner do not appear. Only the name of Jagga Singh son of Ganda Singh appears. They were also not served and the impugned order was passed behind the back of the petitioners. The State has not filed any return nor have respondents 2 to 4. The Admitting Bench, while admitting the petition on July 29, 1966, stayed the dispossession of the petitioners. It is a well settled law that no order can be passed at the back of a person who is to be affected thereby. In Section 42 of the Act it is also mentioned that no adverse order can be passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the person to be affected by that order. The petitioners, respondents 2 to 4 and other right-holders are in possession of their respective holdings for the last more than 10/12 years as the impugned order was never implemented and if at this stage the impugned order is not quashed it would amount to unsetting the settled matter. In this view of the matter, the petition is allowed and the impugned order (Annexure 'D') is quashed. But there will be no order as to costs.;