Col. Rattan Singh and Others vs State of Haryana and Others

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.—This Writ Petition has been filed to quash the order of the Additional Director, Consolidation, of Holdings, Haryana, dated January 28, 1982.

Respondent No.2 filed an application u/s 42 of the East Haryana Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana, on the ground that the Petitioner No.1 has been allotted land ignoring the provisions of the Consolidation Scheme and that the land allotted to him and his-co-sharer respondent No.4 is less than their entitlement and it was much lower in percentage than the land that was allotted to petitioner No.1. Therefore, he sought re-allotment of the land in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme.

There is no dispute that re-partition of the village took place on October 6, 1961, but re-partition was not implemented till July, 1975. Thereafter, one of the brothers of respondent No.2, namely, Mussadi (respondent no. 4 herein) filed an application on August 14, 1975, which was dismissed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana. Thereafter, respondent No.2 filed an application u/s 42 of the Act. That application was allowed by the Additional Director in his impugned order, who remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer with a direction that the allotment should be made in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme. Challenging the said order, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.

The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned order amounts to review of the earlier order passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of holdings, Haryana, on the application filed by respondent No.4 on August 14, 1975. But it is to be seen that the petitioners before the Director, Consolidation of Holdings are different. They are claiming their respective shares to be given in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme. The order passed on the application filed by respondent No.4 does not operate as res judicata on the application filed by Hukam Singh, i.e. respondent No.2. In fact, Hukam Singh is claiming his rights as an adopted son of Kan Kawal Singh, which is a distinct claim from that of Mussadi, respondent No.4. Therefore, I do not think that the impugned order amounts to review of the earlier order passed on the application filed by Mussadi, respondent No.4. In my view, the earlier order also does not debar the Additional Director from going into the question afresh on the principle of res judicata.

It is next argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that application filed by respondent No.2 is barred by time. u/s 42 of the East Haryana Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, the power can be exercised at any time. Therefore, there is no limitation for exercising the powers u/s 42 of the Act. Further, though the re-partition took place in the year 1961 it was sought to be implemented only in July, 1975, when it was found by respondent No.2 that he was allotted the lower percentage of land against his own entitlement, he can certainly make an application u/s 42 of the Act. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the application filed by respondent No.2 is not barred by time. The Additional Director remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer to make the allotment of the land in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme and in accordance with law. While remanding the matter, the Additional Director had taken into consideration the fact that the allotment in favour of petitioner No.1 has been made in violation of the provisions of the Scheme and the allotment has been made in a most careless and reckless manner. This is purely a question of fact. When the Additional Director found as a matter of fact that the allotment has not been made in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme, and contrary to law the Additional Director is right in remanding the matter to the Consolidation of Holdings for re-allotment of the land. I do not therefore, find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.

The Writ Petition, is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed but without costs.