- (1.) The petitioners purchased 12 Kanals 19 Marlas of land from respondent 9 for a sum of Rs. 1000/- by registered deed dated 21st February, 1961. The land was 1/8th share in Rectangle No. 66, Killa Nos. 13/2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13/1, Rectangle No. 128, Killa Nos. 16/3, 17/1, 18/2, 19/1, 22/2, 23, 24, 25/1 and Rectangle No. 137, Killa Nos. 3, 4, 5/1, 7 and 8 in village Badian, tehsil Muktsar, district Ferozepur. Respondents 10 and 11 sold their 1/8th share each in the abovesaid field numbers to Mangal Singh son of Dula Singh and Piare Singh son of Natha Singh, residents of village Badian, after the petitioners had purchased the land mentioned in para 1 from respondent 9. As a result of this sale by respondents 10 and 11, Mangal Singh and Piare Singh became owners of 1/4th share in the above-mentioned field numbers. In respect of this sale the petitioners brought a suit for pre-emption and obtained a decree against Mangal Singh and Piare Singh and thus became owners of the entire land sold by respondents 9, 10 and 11 mentioned above and thus became co-sharers to the extent of 3/8th share in the fields mentioned above.
(2.) The consolidation proceedings in the village started in the year 1960 and repartition of the holdings under Section 21(1) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act (hereinafter called the Act) took place in June, 1960. Chanan Ram, since deceased, father of respondents 3, 4 and 5, filed objections under Section 21(2) of the Act which were accepted on 13th September, 1960 as a result of which Dharam Singh respondent 1 was affected. Chanan Ram deceased claimed no relief against the respondents 9, 10 and 11 whose land had been purchased by the petitioners. Dharam Singh filed an appeal under Section 21(3) of the Act against the orders of the Consolidation Officer which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer on 30th December, 1960. Dharam Singh filed an appeal under Section 21(4) of the Act which was rejected by the Assistant Director, Consolidation of Holdings, as barred by time, vide order dated 30th August, 1961, a copy of which has been filed an Annexure 'C' to the writ petition. The learned Assistant Director observed that the appeal had been filed after the expiry of 69 days when it could be filed only within 60 days. Five days had been spent in obtaining a certified copy of the order and even if that period was excluded, the appeal was still barred by time. Against the order of the Assistant Director, Dharam Singh filed an application under Section 42 of the Act which was rejected on 4th June, 1964, by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, on the ground that in view of the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Roop Chand V. The State of Punjab and another, 1963 65 PunLR 576, the application under Section 42 was not maintainable. Dharam Singh again filed a petition under Section 42 of the Act which was accepted on 7th July, 1964 by the same Additional Director, Dewan Karta Krishan, who had earlier dismissed the application under Section 42 of the Act on 4th June, 1964. The learned Additional Director noted that the application was time-barred but waived the limitation without giving any reasons. He granted the relief to Dharam Singh observing that - "No passage has been provided to the Qurrah of the applicant. The shape of Qurrah is also not proper. It is unnecessarily long. The case was sent by the Director, C/H Panjab, to the C.O. F/S for report. He has submitted a proposal for removing the grievances of the applicant. The proposal is accepted and amendment is ordered accordingly." To this application neither the petitioners nor their predecessors- in- interest, respondents 9, 10 and 11 had been made parties although it affects their lands. The petitioners filed the present writ petition for the quashing of the order of the Additional Director dated 7th July, 1964 as being without jurisdiction on the following grounds :- "i) That there are no powers of review on merits with the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings respondent No. 15. It has been so held by a Full Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Deep Chand V. Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, 1964 66 PunLR 318; ii) that respondent No. 1 had been affected under Section 21(2) by the Consolidation Officer on a petition by Chanan Ram deceased, father of respondent Nos. 3 to 5, and respondent No. 1 had claimed relief against Chanan Ram deceased. At no stage Dharam Singh respondent made the petitioners a party to the proceedings. Even he did not implead the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners from whom the petitioners had acquired the land in dispute. Therefore, the order of the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Annexure 'F' dated 7th July, 1964, is absolutely without jurisdiction as it has been passed at the back of the petitioners without affording them an opportunity of being heard as provided in proviso to Section 42 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act; iii) that the Assistant Director, Consolidation of Holdings, had dismissed the appeal of respondent No. 1 on 30th August, 1961, as representative of the State Government with delegated powers under Section 42 of the Act. According to 1963 PLR 576, as decided by the Supreme Court the State has no authority to exercise its powers again when these have been exercised by its representatives already. As such it was rightly decided by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings on 4th June, 1964 that as the powers have been exercised once by the Assistant Director, Consolidation of Holdings on 30th August, 1961, he has no power to interfere under Section 42. It seems strange that this very Additional Director in spite of his own decision on 4th June, 1964 that he had no powers to interfere again accepted the second petition under Section 42 by respondent No. 1 for the reasons best known to him. This order is absolutely without jurisdiction; iv) that on merits also in view of the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation of Holdings, dated 30th December, 1960, Annexure 'A' it is apparent that Dharam Singh respondent had no case at all. His percentage was the lowest and he had to be shifted. As such the order of the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, dated 7th July, 1964, is also against the interest of justice. v) that as regards the requirements for path respondent No. 1 was not entitled to any path on the side on which it has been given to him. The village lay towards North of his fields and he was entitled if at all to any passage towards the North of his fields. Now he has been given a path from South towards which the village Karaiewala is situated."
(3.) The writ petition has been contested by Dharam Singh respondent alone.;