Ujagar Singh and Another vs Addl. Director, Consolidation of Holdings and Others

V.K. Jhanji, J.—In this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, prayer made is for quashing order dated 14.10.1980 passed by the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, exercising the powers of Director u/s 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (herein after referred to as 1948 Act).

Petitioners have averred that Ujagar Singh, petitioner filed petition u/s 42 of the 1948 Act against order dated 17.8.1974 of the Consolidation Officer. Director Consolidation instead of entertaining the petition directed Ujagar Singh, Petitioner, to avail remedy of appeal. According to the petitioner, he filed appeal before the Settlement Officer and the same was decided on 19.9.1977. Against that order, Ujagar Singh again filed appeal u/s 21(4) before the Assistant Director, Consolidation of Holdings, who remanded the case to the Settlement Officer for decision afresh. It is the case of the petitioners that Durga and Kanshi, respondents 3 and 4 herein, also filed separate appeals against order dated 19.9.97 passed by Settlement Officer and their cases were also remanded to the Settlement Officer for fresh decision. Settlement Officer after re-considering the matter maintained order dated 19.9.1997. Kanshi and Durga filed appeals before the Assistant Director, Consolidation, and vide order dated 18.5.1978, the case was once again remanded to the Consolidation Officer for decision afresh. Petitioners have further averred that before the Consolidation Officer, through the intervention of village Panchayat, the matter was compromised and order dated 20.9.1979 was passed on the basis of the compromise. Petitioners have contended that respondent No. 3 Kanshi, filed petition u/s 42 of the 1948 Act before the Additional Director, Consolidation, who vide order dated 14.10.1980 accepted the petition u/s 42 of the Act and resultantly, set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer. Hence, the present writ petition.

Upon notice, two sets of Written statement have been filed; one by respondent No. 3 and the other by respondent No. 4. In their written statement, respondents have denied that the order of the Additional Director is unjust or was an ex-parte order or no service was effected on the petitioners. They have also stated that petitioner No. 1 infact, was present on the date of hearing and had full knowledge of the proceedings and dates of the case.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that Additional Director Consolidation committed an error in law in setting aside the order of Consolidation Officer which was based on compromise between all interested parties. He also contended that order, Annexure P-3, is an ex-parte order as petitioner, Ujagar Singh was made party only in name, but he was not served at all. It is also contended that petitioner No. 2 was not made a party in the appeal and the order was not passed at her back.

I have perused the record and heard the counsel for the petitioner at length.

It is not in dispute that order dated 20.9,1979 was passed on the basis of the compromise. Appeal against that order was filed by respondent No. 3 before the Additional Director on the ground that compromise, annexure P-2, was not made between all the interested parties. it was also averred that Gurmail Singh, respondent No. 5 was one of the affected and interested party, and he neither had signed the compromise deed nor accepted the same, but the Consolidation Officer although noted this fact yet passed order stating it to be on the basis of compromise. Additional Director vide the impugned order has set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer on finding that some of the persons affected had not signed the compromise and were not willing to accept the same. He observed that the Consolidation Officer ought not to have passed order under the grab of compromise. In my view, the order of the Additional Director is just and proper and no interference in that regard is called for. As regards the grievance that petitioners had not been served or the order passed against them was an ex-parte order, respondents 3 and 4 have denied this allegation of the petitioners. On record also, there is no acceptable proof that petitioners had not been served or they had no knowledge of the hearing before the Additional Director, Consolidation. In case petitioners had not been served or order against them was an ex-parte order, then proper remedy was to file an application before the Additional Director for setting aside of the ex-parte order. In writ jurisdiction, the High Court cannot embark upon enquiry into the disputed questions of fact.

Consequently, the appeal fails. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.