- (1.) Though this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner impugnes order dated April 11, 1967, Annexure 'E', passed under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), whereby the Director has nullified his earlier order dated April 1, 1967, Annexure 'B', passed in favour of the present petitioner. Some of the relevant facts are as under :- Against a order dated August 3, 1965, passed by the Assistant Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Rohtak, both the parties to the present petition filed two separate appeals under Section 42 of the Act before the Inquiry Officer, Vigilance, Haryana, exercising powers under Section 42 of the Act. The said authority vide his order Annexure 'D', allowed the appeal of the present petitioner and as a result thereof, withdrew 1 Kanal and 2 Marlas of land from the easter side of petitioner's Killa No. 66/3/1E, and allotted the same to the present private respondents. While hearing the appeal of the said respondents, against the same order of the Assistant Director, he again allowed the appeal and while setting aside the order of the Assistant Director, ordered some adjustment as a result of which the above-aid land of Killa No. 66/3/1E measuring 1 kanal and 2 marlas, was withdrawn from the area of the present private respondents and re-allotted to the petitioner, and thus he nullified his earlier order Annexure 'D' without specifically reviewing the same. The whole problem arose in taking up the two appears filed by either of the parties against the same order of the Assistant Director on two different dates. Had the appeals been heard and decided together, this contingency would not have arisen. Though at the time of the passing of the subsequent order, that is, Annexure 'E', the present petitioner was present before the Director as a respondent, and was heard also, yet the grouse of the petitioner is that the Director could not possibly review his earlier order, Annexure 'D', dated April 1, 1967. This legal position is not seriously disputed by Mr. D.S. Chahal, learned counsel for the respondents. In this view of the matter, the order Annexure 'E', has necessarily to be set aside. In order to do justice between the parties and to obviate the difficulty likely to be created by the earlier order, Annexure 'D', if allowed to remain intact, the same too is set aside.
(2.) In view of the discussion above, it is directed that the authority competent to hear appeals under Section 42 of the Act, would decide both the appeals filed by both the parties against the order of the Assistant Director, dated August 3, 1965, Annexure 'C' at one and the same time, after giving due notice to the parties. With this direction the writ petition is allowed and the orders Annexures 'D' and 'E' are set aside. However, no order as to costs is passed. Petition accepted.;