VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) PRESENT Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed to challenge ex parte order passed by respondent No. 1 as well as order Annexure P-3 vide which he has refused to entertain petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short the Act) for setting aside ex parte order passed against the petitioner.
(2.) IT was prayed by the petitioner that an application was made by respondent Nos. 2 to 6 under Section 42 of the Act in which only Tehsildar Sales (Surplus), Hoshiarpur was impleaded as a party. The prayer made in the application was that surplus land situated at another place be substituted with another surplus land. Said application was allowed on the consent given by Naib Tehsildar Agrarian. In pursuance to the order passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, on an application moved by respondent No. 2 the petitioner was dispossessed from the land in dispute which resulted in filing of civil suit in civil court at Hoshiarpur. The petitioner succeeded before the trial Court but appeal was decided against him against which the petitioner filed regular second appeal No. 1933 of 1984 which was admitted for hearing. In the civil suit on appreciation of evidence a finding was recorded that the petitioner was put in possession of the land which was declared to be surplus in the hands of Banarsi Dass. However, it was on account of impugned order Annexure P-1 that the appeal was accepted by the learned lower appellate court as it was held that in view of the order Annexure P-1, the petitioner has no right in the land and therefore, was not entitled to declaration that he was owner in possession of the land.
(3.) IT was further the case of the petitioner that after coming to know about the said order he moved an application under Section 42 of the Act for recall of ex parte order on the plea that even though he was interested party he had no notice of the same. However, the said application was also dismissed by observing that the petitioner was not a necessary party as Agrarian Department which transferred the land to the petitioner was necessary party as the petitioner drew his title through Agrarian Department which was duly represented. The application was also held to be time barred.;