- (1.) The petitioners in C.W. No. 1439 of 1968 are the appellants in this appeal. Their petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. One of the grounds on which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition was that all persons who were parties to the impugned order were not impleaded as parties to the writ petition. On verification, we find that all the parties to the impugned order have been impleaded as parties to the writ petition. The only difference is that while Gram Sabha was a party to the proceedings before the Assistant Director, in the writ petition the Sarpanch of the Gram Sabha has been impleaded as a party. Whether it makes any substantial difference or not, it is unnecessary for us to consider this in view of the other ground on which the writ petition was dismissed. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants before the learned Single Judge was that the original scheme made under the provisions of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, was not available before the Assistant Director and, therefore, he was incompetent to modify the scheme in part. As before us, so also before the learned Single Judge, reliance was placed on the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Hardial Singh and others v. Director of Consolidation of Holdings and others, 1970 72 PunLR 167. Two questions were referred to the Full Bench, namely :- (1) Can a scheme be amended in an individual case by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, under Section 42 of the Act ? (2) If answer to the first question is in the affirmative, what is the nature and extent of opportunity of hearing that must be given to a party affected by such an order in view of the proviso to Section 42 of the Act. The answer given by Full Bench to these two questions was as follows ? "Consequently, the answer to the first question is that a scheme of consolidation can be amended under Section 42 of the Act in an individual case and the amendment need not necessarily be actual rewriting of a particular provision of the scheme, and the answer to the second question is that it is proper and adequate compliance with the proviso to Section 42 of the Act if a change or amendment or variation in a scheme of consolidation is made after the authority making the same has before its mind the particular provision of the scheme to be thus affected and the arguments of the parties in respect to the effect of the change. Once the matter is present to the mind of the authority exercising powers under Section 42 of the Act, and after considering the relevant provision of the scheme it gives a decision or makes an order, that is sufficient compliance with the proviso to Section 42 of the Act and no more is required." The learned counsel for the appellants argued that if the scheme was not available and, therefore, if the scheme could not be present to the mind of the authority, then the authority would have no jurisdiction to modify a part of the scheme. We do not think that the decision of the Full Bench case be interpreted in this manner. If the original scheme as passed is not available, as in the present case, it cannot be said that no action can be taken in an individual case at all. If the argument of the learned counsel is accepted, the whole of the scheme will have to be rewritten before any part of it can be amended. Such an interpretation does not follow from the decision of the Full Bench. All that the learned Judges of the Full Bench held was that the effect of the change must be considered and the parties affected by the change must be heard before the scheme is modified in an individual case. That has been done in the present case. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.;