- (1.) THE question of the interpretation of certain provisions of the Patiala and East punjab States Union Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act (Act No. V of 2007 Bk) has been referred to a Division Bench by Grover, J. in consequence of the fact that his own interpretation of identical provisions contained in the corresponding Punjab Act expressed in Civil Writ No. 236 of 1957 decided by him on 28-4-1958 (Punj) was found in connection with the present petition to he in conflict with two earlier unreported decisions of Bissau Narain, J. in Civil Writ No. 372 of 1956, D/- 9-4-1957 (Punj) and Civil Writ No. 546 of 1956, d/-20-5-1957 (Punj) respectively. The relevant provisions of the Pepsu Act are contained in Sections 20, 40 and 41, Section 20 reads: "20 (1) The Consolidation Officer shall after obtaining the advice of the land-owners of the estate or estates concerned, carry out repartition in accordance with the scheme of consolidation of holdings confirmed under section 19, and the boundaries of the holdings as demarcated shall be shown on the shajra which shall be published in the prescribed manner in the estate or estates concerned. (2) Any person aggrieved by the repartition may file a written objection within fifteen days of the publication before the Consolidation Officer who shall after hearing the objector pass such orders as he considers proper confirming or modifying the repartition. (3) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer under sub-section (2) may within one month of that order file an appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) who shall after hearing the appellant pass such order as he considers proper. (4) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) under Sub-section (3) may within sixty days of that order appeal to the Government. The order of the Government on such appeal, and subject only to such order, the order of the Settlement officer (Consolidation) under Sub-section (3) or, if the order of the consolidation Officer under Sub-section (2) was not appealed against, such order of the Consolidation Officer, shall be final and shall not be liable to be called in question in any court. " Section 40 reads - (40) (1) The Government may for the administration or this act, appoint such persons as it thinks fit, and may by notification delegate any of its powers or functions under this act to any of its officers either, by name or designation. (2) A Consolidation Officer or a Settlement Officer (Consolidation) may, with the sanction of the Government, delegate any of his powers or functions under this Act to any person in the service of the Government. " 41. The Government may, at any time, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety' of any order passed by any officer under this Act, call for and examine the record of any case pending before or disposed of by such officer and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit; Provided that no order shall be varied or reversed without affording the parties interested an opportunity of being heard. "
(2.) IN this case an appeal was filed to the Settlement Officer under Sub-section (3)of Section 20 against, the order of the Consolidation Officer passed on certain objections and against the order of the Settlement Officer the parties who are the petitioners in the writ petition filed an appeal under Section 20 (4) which was decided by the Settlement Commissioner, Patiala, to whom apparently the powers of the Government to hear appeals under Sub-section (4) had been delegated. The order of the Settlement Commissioner was reversed and the order of the settlement Officer-restored by the Director of Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, (integration having taken place in the meantime,) apparently exercising the powers of the Government under Section 41 of the Act.
(3.) THE question involved is whether the Government under Section 41 can revise or review its own order passed in second appeal under the provisions of Subsection (4) of Section 20, or in other words whether the word "officer" in the phrase order passed by any officer under this Act contained in Section 41 can be said to include an officer to whom the powers of the Government under Subsection (4) ofsection 20 have been delegated.;