R.S. Narula, J. - (1.) ORDER of Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab Hissar, dated December 2, 1964 (copy Annexure 'A' to the writ petition), has been challenged by Sahib Singh and others, petitioners in this case, on the solitary ground that the same had been passed without jurisdiction inasmuch as the Additional Director could not, in exercise of his power under section 42 of the Fast Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act (50 of 1948) (hereinafter called the Act). vary or set aside on order which was neither improper nor illegal. Though several other grounds for impugning the order of the State Government have been mentioned in the writ petition, none of them has been pressed at the hearing of the case by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In proceedings under section 42 of the Act, Dangal Singh alias Dangli Singh, Deva Singh and Labh Singh, respondents Nos. 2 to 4 were the applicants. The present petitioners were some of the respondents. The only objection which was pressed by the contesting respondents before the State Government was that their nehri plot should be improved to the extent that Killas Nos. 85/19 and 20 may be transferred from the present writ petitioners to the contesting respondents in lieu of Killas Nos. 58/13 and 14. After examining the record of the case, the Additional Director came to the conclusion that the adjustment asked for by the contesting respondents would improve both the plots, i.e., of the petitioners as well as of the respondents, as each one of those plots would become more compact than before. The writ petitioners stated before the Additional Director that prior to the repartition they held the eastern side, and that the claim of the contesting respondents about their having held the eastern side was incorrect. Without deciding the said dispute and assuming that the allegation of the petitioners in that respect was correct the Additional Director held that the petitioners should not mind the change as Killas Nos.85/13 and 14 lay on the eastern side. On those findings the impugned changes were ordered by the State Government under section 42 of the Act.
(2.) THE purview of section 42 of the Act reads as below: 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 thereto as it thinks fit: Mr. Indar Krishan Mehta, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners, has referred to the observations of Pandit J. in Rattan and another v. The State Punjab (1965) 67 P.L.R. 276 to the effect that the intention of the Legislature in enacting section 42 is to confer special powers on the State Government in suitable cases to take action under that section "only where it finds that there was some illegality or impropriety." Counsel contends that the Additional Director not having found that there was any illegality or impropriety in the repartition as it stood sanctioned prior to the passing of the impugned order, the Additional Director had no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter. Even Mr. Bachhittar Singh, learned counsel for the contesting respondents, had to admit that there is no question of the Additional Director having found any illegality having been committed which he sought to rectify. The only question that, therefore, calls for decision is whether the impugned order was passed to remove any impropriety or not. Mr. Bachhittar Singh has relied on certain observations made in the judgment of Shamsher Bahadur, J. in Jetha Ram v. State of Punjab (1965) 67 P.L.R. 15 S.N to the effect that matters relating to evaluation etc. of land in consolidation proceedings fall in the peculiar jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities who hear appeals, objections and revisions, and it would be singularly inappropriate for the High Court to substitute its own judgment for those of the statutory authorities who are competent to decide these questions. The ratio of the judgment of Shamsher Bahadur, J. in Jetha Ram's case (supra) has no relevance to the question which has been posed before me by Mr. Inder Krishan Mehta. The learned counsel for the petitioners is not asking this Court to interfere on the merits of the controversy relating to the repartition, but is only questioning the jurisdiction of the Additional Director to interfere in the matter at all. On the merits of the controversy, I am inclined to think that though no such exact phraseology was used by the Additional Director, he seems to have come to the finding that the repartition between the parties as it stood prior to the passing of the impugned order was not proper and it was on that account that he chose to interfere to remove the impropriety. Though it does appear to be correct that the jurisdiction of the State Government under section 42 of the Act is restricted to cases where the Government wants to satisfy itself about the legality or propriety of any order etc. passed or any scheme made under the Act, it is not necessary for the authority exercising the functions of the State Government to record definite finding in so many words to the effect that interference was being made in order to remove some illegality or impropriety. It further appears to me that the condition precedent for the exercise of jurisdiction to call for and examine the record of any case pending before or disposed of by any officer under the Act is dependent on the State Government proposing to do so only for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of the order etc It is open to the State Government, after calling for the record of any case for any of the two aforesaid purposes to "pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit." This appears to indicate that once the record of a case has been called for by the State Government, it may interfere on any valid ground but the aim and object of such interference must be either to rectify some illegality or remove some impropriety. It is clearly implied from the language of the provision that there will be no ground for interference in a case where the order passed by the authorities below or the scheme framed or confirmed is both legal and proper.
(3.) IN view of my finding to the effect that the State Government does appear to have found some impropriety in the repartition and appears to have passed the impugned order to remove such impropriety. I do not find any justification to interfere in this case.;