- (1.) The petitioner and respondents 2 to 4 (viz. Sohan Singh, Piara Singh and Dharmu) are the right-holders in village Bela Ramgarh. The consolidation of holdings took place in the village in the year 1962 and the repartition took place in accordance with the scheme made for consolidation of land holdings. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 never filed any appeal against the said re-partition under Section 212(2), 21(3) or 21(4) of East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act) and thus possession transferred in accordance with the scheme became final. Respondent No. 3 Piara Singh made an application under Section 42 of the Act on 14th January, 1963, which was dismissed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Chandigarh (respondent No. 1) vide his order dated 8th November, 1963. Copy of his order is annexed with the writ petition as Annexure 'B'. Sometime after dismissal of the application, No. 2, namely, Sohan Singh brother of Piara Singh made another application under Section 42 of the Act on 16th January, 1964 and the Additional Director vide his order dated 14th April, 1966, allowed the said application. The order of the Additional Director is annexed with this petition as Annexure 'D'. It is against this order of the Additional Director that the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that Piara Singh and Sohan Singh are real brothers that their Khata is also joint and that since the application on behalf of Piara Singh was dismissed earlier by the Additional Director, no second application was competent on behalf of the other brother, namely, Sohan Singh. His second contention is that the Additional Director had not condoned the delay in filing the second application which was filed after a considerable long time. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3, on the other hand, contends that the order was passed by the Additional Director after a compromise between the parties the son of the petitioner was present and he entered into a compromise and in terms of the said compromise the Additional Director passed the impugned order. I have heard the respective contentions of the parties and also gone through the impugned order and the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2. In my view, the second application made by the brothers is joint and the earlier application filed by Piara Singh (respondent No. 3) was dismissed by the Additional Director and it tantamounts to reviewing his first order which is illegal as the Additional Director had no jurisdiction under the Act to review his earlier order. The admitting Bench had admitted the writ petition on 26th August, 1966, and the dispossession of the petitioner was stayed. This means that the impugned order of the Additional Director was not implemented. Parties are in possession of their respective holdings for the last about 12/13 years and it would amount to unsettling the settled matters if at this stage the impugned order is not quashed.
(3.) In this view of the matter, I find merit in the petition and the same is allowed and the impugned order of the Additional Director is quashed. There will be no order as to costs.;