R.S.Narula, J. - (1.) THE order of Shri Jaspal Singh, Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab Chandigarh dated July 21, 1965 (Annexure 'B' to the writ petition) passed, on the application of one Sunder Singh, dated February 4, 1964, under section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation) and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, hereinafter called the Act (Annexure 'A' to the writ petition) has been impugned in this case by the learned counsel for the petitioners on two grounds namely: (i) that Sunder Singh the applicant in the application under section 42 of the Act having died before the hearing of his application, the impugned order could not have been made in favour of the dead person; and (ii) that the application under section 42 of the Act not having been made against any order passed or any scheme prepared or confirmed or even against any repartition made by any officer under the Act, the State Government had no jurisdiction to pass any order on that application under section 41 of the Act.
(2.) THE facts relevant for deciding both these points are not in dispute. The application under section 42 has been made on February 4, 1964. It complained against an apprehension about an order which was likely to be passed in the repartition proceedings. The repartition had not been prepared till then and was formulated under sub -section (1) of section 21 of the Act only on February 21, 1964, during the pendency of the application under section 42. Sunder Singh alone had filed the application under section 42, though he did have co -sharers. Sunder Singh had died before the hearing of his application and Sunder Singh's brother and co -sharer had appeared at the hearing of the application of his deceased brother and had prosecuted the same. On these facts, I am unable to find any force in the first submission of Mr. S.P. Goyal, inasmuch as the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to proceedings under section 42 of the Act and it cannot be held that the application of Sunder Singh had abated merely because on his death no formal order had been passed for bringing on record his legal representatives. Even otherwise, proceedings under section 42 of the Act are in the nature of re -visional proceedings and not appellate proceedings. Revision petitions do not normally abate and it is in the discretion of the revising Court or Tribunal to proceed with the matter in spite of the death of the revision petitioner. Moreover, the interest of Sunder Singh was being in fact watched properly in this case at the hearing of section 42 application by his brother, who was admittedly a co -sharer. I have, therefore, no hesitation in repelling the first contention of Mr. Goyal. I, however, find great force in the second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The purview of section 42 of the Act is - The State Government may at any time for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed, scheme prepared or confirmed or repartition made 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 there to as it thinks fit. Provided that....
(3.) A plain reading of the statutory provision shows that the State Government has no jurisdiction to entertain an application under section 42 of the Act which is not made against any order passed or against any scheme prepared or confirmed or against any repartition made by an officer under the Act. Even Mr. Wasu, learned counsel for respondents 3 to 12 has not been able to urge with any strength that the application of Sunder Singh was competent under section 42. He has, however, submitting that the State Government has the alternative jurisdiction to take suo motu action under section 42, and inasmuch as the repartition had in fact been made before the impugned order was passed, the State Government should be deemed to have acted suo motu. This argument appears to me to be fallacious. The State Government has in fact not proceeded suo motu in this case, but has purported to act on the application of Sunder Singh. The application having been incompetent for the reasons already stated, the State Government had no jurisdiction to pass any order on the same except to reject it on account of its being incompetent. Inasmuch as the impugned order has been passed solely on the basis of Sunder Singh's application which was not competent under section 42, the State Government had no jurisdiction to pass the said order.;