D.V. Sehgal, J. - (1.) Mehar Singh petitioner, through the present writ petition, prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 7th March, 1979 (Annexure P. 5) passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings. Punjab respondent No. 1. He died during the pendency of this writ petition and his five sons were brought on the record as his legal representatives, vide order dated 4tb July, 1979 passed in Civil Misc. No 953 of 1979.
(2.) Briefly, the facts are that the consolidation of holdings in village Maira, Tehsil Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur, took place in the year 1975. According to the petitioner, the Consolidation Officer, without giving a notice to him and without hearing him, ordered change in his kurrah on 30th May, 1975 He filed a petition under section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act (for short, the Act) against the aforesaid order, which was allowed by respondent No 1, vide order dated 6th April, 1976 and the matter was remanded to the Consolidation Officer for deciding the objections of the right-holders under section 21 of the Act after providing due opportunity under sub section (2) thereof. After remand, the Consolidation Officer, Jullundur, passed a fresh order dated 17th Aug., 1977 (Annexure P-1). One of the right-holders Amar Chand son of Bagha Ram preferred an appeal before the Managing Officer, Consolidation, Jullundur, which was, however, dismissed, vide order dated 15th Dec. 1977 Annexure P-2). He then sought remedy by way of an appeal under section 21(4) of the Act but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 26th May, 1978 (Annexure P-3). Another shareholder Smt. Kartari filed a petition under section 42 of the Act before respondent No. 1 and she impleaded the petitioner alone as the respondent Her petition was dismissed, vide order dated 6th Sept., 1978 (Annexure P-4). Four petitions under section 42 of the Act were filed before respondent No. 1 by respondents Nos. 2 to 7, which were taken up together. The grievance of these respondents before him was that inferior land, which originally belonged to the petitioner, had been wrongly included in their kurrah and the petitioner had instead been given superior land to give him undue benefit. It was contended that the petitioner had somehow managed to get rid of his own area of inferior quality and got fertile area which originally belonged to these respondents and other shareholders. A desire was expressed by the rival parties that respondent No. 1 should inspect the spot which was done by him in their presence. He noticed that a major part of the area, which originally belonged to Mehar Singl etc., was really inferior and was over valued and that respondents Nos. 2 to 7 had a legitimate grievance and they were rightly not prepared to accept the same for inclusion in their respective kurrahs He found that lit area, in question, was littered with stones and was net very productive On the other hand, the area, which originally belonged to responded Nos. 2 to 7 but was excluded from their take by the Consolidation Office: vide order Annexure P-1, was definitely fertile On reaching this finding after spot inspection, respondent No 1 modified the order Annexure P-1, vide his order dated 7th March, 1979 (Annexure P 5). He observed that complete relief could not he given to respondents Nos. 2 to 7 as demanded by them but, by way of the modification as he was directing. whatever maximum relief could be provided would be afforded to them.
(3.) The petitioner assailed the order Annexure P-5 on the ground, that since the petition of Smt. Kartari had already been dismissed by respondent No. 1, vide order Annexure P-4, the impugned order Annexure P-1 amounted to a review of his own order. It was further contended that the petition filed by respondent No.7 was barred by time, that the delay was condoned without any cogent reasons, that the valuation of the land, as as assessed by the Consolidation authorities, having not been challenged earlier could not be made the subject-matter of the petition before respondent No. 1 and that, since a tank had been constructed in the land in possession o the petitioner by the Government for irrigation purposes and he himself had made some investment in it, he could not be deprived of the right so accrued to him Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 filed a written statement dated 9th July, 1979 Respondent No. 5 filed a separate written statement on 16th Feb., 1983. They have opposed the petition and controverted the petitioner's claim. They have denied that the order (Annexure P-1 amounts to a review of an earlier order (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No 1 on a petition filed by Smt. Kartari. It has been asserted that since respondent No. 1 personally inspected the spot at the request of the petitioner as well as respondents Nos. 2 to 7 and, on inspection of the spot, it has been found that they have been allotted land) inferior quality originally owned by the petitioner while their land, which is comparatively much superior, has been wrongly allotted in consolation to the petitioner, to do substantial justice, the impugned order has been passed by respondent No. 1.;