Rajwant Singh vs Additional Director, Consolidation Of Holdings, Hissar and Others

R.S. Narula, J.—The circumstances in which Rajwant Singh, son of Zora Singh of village Matdadu, Tehsil Sirsa, District Hissar, (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner''s village) has filed this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India are these:

The admitted facts are that consolidation proceedings were started in the petitioner''s village on March 9, 1960. Scheme u/s 19(1) of the East Punjab Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Consolidation Act) was published on June 30, 1961. All objections against it having been decided, the scheme was confirmed u/s 20(3) of the Consolidation Act by the Settlement Officer on August 12, 1961. Repartition scheme u/s 21(1) of the Act was published on September 29, 1961, and was confirmed on February 12, 1962. It is not disputed that new record-of-rights of the petitioner''s village was duly prepared and completed and was sent to the record room on March 19, 1962. after the transfer of possession according to the repartition scheme.

Major portion of the land of Jangir Singh (respondent No. 4) was ordered to be given to Zara Singh, father of the petitioner, by the order of the Consolidation Officer, Halqa Dabwali, dated December 16, 1961. Against that order Jangir Singh (respondent No. 4) preferred an appeal to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Sirsa, Which appeal was dismissed in default vide order Annexure A. 1 dated May 3, 1962. Rajwant Singh does not appear to have been impleaded as a party to these proceedings though his father was obviously a party. Against this order of the Settlement Officer, Jangir Singh respondent filed a further appeal, which was disposed of by the order of the Assistant Director, Consolidation Patiala, dated November 27, 1963, of which copy is Annexure B to the writ petition. Once again the petitioner does not appear to have been impleaded as a party to that appeal. It is, however, significant and it is not disputed that the petitioner was present before the Assistant Director, Consolidation, Patiala, at the hearing of the appeal. Not only his appearance is recorded in the order Annexure B to the writ petition, of which another copy has been filed by the State as Annexure R. 2 to its written statement, but the order itself shows that Rajwant Singh petitioner actively participated in the proceedings before the Assistant Director and made his own suggestions which were duly considered. By this order certain changes amongst the original owners by mutual adjustments amongst them were made though nobody else was affected by the same. Rajwant Singh petitioner went up in revision of the above-mentioned order of the Assistant Director, Consolidation, dated November 27, 1963, and this revision petition was disposed of by the order of the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, dated May 20 1964 of which a copy has been placed on the record by the State and is marked Annexure R. I. It was specifically observed in the order (Annexure R. 1) that Rajwant Singh etc. petitioners had not impleaded Ajaib Singh and Ranjod Singh, who were present before the Assistant Director, and that the petitioners sought redress against Jangir Singh alone. The following observation in the said order is again significant:

It does not seem to be necessary in the situation to make so much variation in the different grades of the right-holders. The petitioner says that he would be satisfied if he gets * * and to this extent area is withdrawn from * * *. The following changes are, therefore, ordered u/s 42 * *...*

Three points had been raised in the writ petition, namely:

(1) That the amendment of section 23 of the Consolidation Act effected in 1962 is not retrospective;

(2) That the consolidation authorities are directing the petitioner to deliver the possession without notifying any date under amended section 23(2) of the Act, and

(3) That the order (Annexure B to the writ petition and Annexure R. 1 to the written statement of the State) is liable to be set aside and quashed as Jangir Singh (respondent No. 4) had not impleaded the petitioner as a party to the proceedings before the Assistant Director. Consequently, it is argued that the order (Annexure R. 1) must fall with order R. 2.

At the hearing of this writ petition, however, Shri Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, gave up the first two points in view of the situation created by the completion, of the record of-rights of the petitioner''s village, which fact his client could not dispute. In fairness to the learned Advocate General, I may also point out that it was argued on behalf of the contesting respondents that even otherwise there was no force in the first two contention of the petitioner because order (Annexure. R 1), which now holds the field, was not passed as a part of any repartition scheme but had been passed u/s 42 of the Consolidation Act Mr. Kaushal, learned Advocate General, contended that section 23 of the Act could be invoked only in case of intended delivery of possession of different right holders under the repartition scheme as such and that the operation of the said section and its requirements stood excluded by section 24 of the Act in case of individual orders passed by the State u/s 42 of the Act. There appears to be substantial force in these arguments of the learned Advocate General but in view of the fact that the petitioner has dropped the first two points, it is not necessary for me to finally pronounce on this aspect of the case.

The main point pressed by Shri Bahadur Singh is that his client, petitioner before me, has not been impleaded by respondent No. 4 in his appeal before the Assistant Director. I regret I am not able to find the least force in this contention. Whether Rajwant Singh petitioner had or had not been impleaded by Jangir Singh respondent in his appeal before the Assistant Director, lost all force when (1) his father Zora Singh had been impleaded, (2) Rajwant Singh himself appeared before the Assistant Director, (3) Rajwant Singh took active part in the proceedings before the Assistant Director and (4) Rajwant Singh himself along with others filed a further petition for revision of that order before the Director, where again he was heard at length and succeeded in getting some further changes effected. All that is necessary under the Act as well as in accordance with the principles of natural justice is that a person likely to be affected by an order should be heard before such an order is passed. The admitted facts of this case amply prove that the petitioner was heard at all relevant stages and nothing more is necessary in these circumstances.

No other point was argued before me. This petition, therefore, fai''s and is dismissed but no order is made as to costs.