Atma Singh and ors. Vs. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings and ors.

Atma Singh and ors. vs Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings and ors.

Disposition Petition allowed Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Feb 25, 2004

~7 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/615056

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/615056
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Judge: G.S. Singhvi, J.
Decided On: Feb 25, 2004
Case Number: Civil Writ Petition No. 1051 of 1984
Subject: Civil
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- Sections 100-A [As inserted by Act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & Letters Patent, 1865, Clause 10: [Dr. B.S. Chauhan, CJ, L. Mohapatra & A.S. Naidu, JJ] Letters Patent Appeal Order of Single Judge of High Court passed while deciding matters filed under Order 43, Rule1 of C.P.C., - Held, After introduction of Section ...

Key legal issue: Civil
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed
Acts & sections: East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 - Sections 42

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Atma Singh and ors.

Advocate Arun Pali, Adv.

Respondent

Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings and ors.

Advocate Rita Kohli, D.A.G. for Respondent No. 1 and;None for Remaining Respondents

Legal References

Acts: East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 - Sections 42
Reported In: (2004)137PLR578

Excerpt

.....and decided by a single judge of a high court, no further appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an appeal to the high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a single judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a special act. sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002] & 104:[dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] writ appeal held, a writ appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by single judge in a writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india. in a writ application filed under articles 226 and 227 of constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226, a writ appeal will lie. but, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge in exercising powers of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution. - 4 sadhu ram as well as against respondent no...........respondent no. 2 has not controverted the allegation made by the petitioners that the notice issued by respondent no. 1 had not been served upon them. however, she has made an attempt to justify the impugned orders by asserting that the original order passed by respondent no. 1 was void ab initio.4. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.5. for deciding whether the impugned order is vitiated due to violation of the rules of natural justice, it will be useful to notice the abstracts of the averments contained in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the writ petition and the corresponding paragraphs of the written statement of respondent no. 2. the same read as under:paragraphs 11 and 12 of the writ petition11. that surprisingly and shockingly respondent no. 2-smt. sukhdev kaur, who has no right, title or interest either in the property of bhag singh and others nor any locus standi in the gram panchayat filed a frivolous and baseless petition under section 42 of the act levelling wild allegations against the petitioner-bhag singh and respondent no. 4 sadhu ram as well as against respondent no. 3 and finally prayed that the order passed by respondent no. 1 dated 18.8.1978 be set aside since it had been passed on incorrect basis and distorted version. several other false allegations were made and quite interestingly this petition which was filed on 14th of october, 1983 and in a way prayer was made before respondent no. 1 to review his own order passed about six years back and which was finally decided on 26th october, 1983. the ahlmad of the court issued summons under his own signatures on october 17, 1983 and the process-server reached the village on 25th october, 1983 and as per report respondents nos. 7 to 27 in that petition were reported not to be residing in the village as per verification by the sarpanch and only bhag singh was available to accept notice and further was made responsible on behalf of his brothers and the matter was finally.....

Full Judgment

G.S. Singhvi, J.

1. (25th February, 2004) - This petition is directed against order dated 26.10.1983 passed by Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Camp at Rajpura (respondent No. 1) vide which he accepted the petition filed by Smt. Sukhdev Kaur (respondent No. 2) under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1946 (for short, the Act') and set aside order dated 18.8.1978 (wrongly described as order dated 31.7.1980) passed by his predecessor.

2. One of the grounds on which the petitioners have challenged the impugned order is that notice of the petition filed by respondent No. 2 had not, been served upon them. They have placed on record English translation of notice dated 17.10.1983 issued by the office of respondent No. 1 and the report of the Process Server to show that when the latter had gone to serve the notice, majority of the addresses were not, in the village. They have also averred that the impugned order is liable to be quashed on the ground of violation of the rules of natural justice because no opportunity of hearing was given to them.

3. Respondent No. 2 has not controverted the allegation made by the petitioners that the notice issued by respondent No. 1 had not been served upon them. However, she has made an attempt to justify the impugned orders by asserting that the original order passed by respondent No. 1 was void ab initio.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. For deciding whether the impugned order is vitiated due to violation of the rules of natural justice, it will be useful to notice the abstracts of the averments contained in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the writ petition and the corresponding paragraphs of the written statement of respondent No. 2. The same read as under:

Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the writ petition

11. That surprisingly and shockingly respondent No. 2-Smt. Sukhdev Kaur, who has no right, title or interest either in the property of Bhag Singh and others nor any locus standi in the Gram Panchayat filed a frivolous and baseless petition under Section 42 of the Act levelling wild allegations against the petitioner-Bhag Singh and respondent No. 4 Sadhu Ram as well as against respondent No. 3 and finally prayed that the order passed by respondent No. 1 dated 18.8.1978 be set aside since it had been passed on incorrect basis and distorted version. Several other false allegations were made and quite interestingly this petition which was filed on 14th of October, 1983 and in a way prayer was made before respondent No. 1 to review his own order passed about six years back and which was finally decided on 26th October, 1983. The Ahlmad of the Court issued summons under his own signatures on October 17, 1983 and the process-server reached the village on 25th October, 1983 and as per report respondents Nos. 7 to 27 in that petition were reported not to be residing in the village as per verification by the Sarpanch and only Bhag Singh was available to accept notice and further was made responsible on behalf of his brothers and the matter was finally decided the very next day i.e., 26th October, 1983 at Rajpura. The summons alongwith the report of the process-server is annexed herewith as Annexure P4 to the writ petition.

12. That respondent No. 1 without even looking at the service and the report and throwing all the norms of procedure in the dust bin, without verifying as to whether all the interested persons have been served or not hastened to decide the matter vide his order dated 26th October, 1983 and allowed the petition filed by respondent No. 2 and set aside the order passed by him earlier dated 18.8.1978 (Annexure P2)

Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the written statement

11. The allegations as made in para 11 are denied. It is wrong that the answering respondent has no right, title or interest in the land in dispute. The answering respondent is admittedly entitled to the allotment of the area to the extent of 2B-17B on account of Kami and the present area which has recently been allotted to Bhag Singh and others falls in proximity to the area already allotted to the answering respondent, whereas it is far away from the major portion of Shri Bhag Singh and his brothers who could be allotted land in khasra No. 518/523 which is adjacent to the land. If at all there exists any Guga Mari, which in fact does not exist, it would have figured in the revenue records. The interest of the answering respondent is admitted by the petitioners even in the petition filed by Shri Mehnga Singh and others under Section 42 of the Act. In para 7 of that petition, it is submitted as under:

'7. That the respondent-Sukhdev Kaur filed the petition with a malafide intention to grab the valuable land as she filed a petition to get the kami which was remanded to C.O. on 16.9.83, but there was no land available with panchayat in this valuable area then the respondent filed this petition on 14.10.83 to get set aside the order of Addl. Director dated 31.7.80, so that the area available to decide her case remanded by Addl. Director, C.H. on 15.9.1983 and she became successful. This was done for herself interest. Copy of the order dated 15.9.1983 is attached.'

It is therefore, wrong to say that answering respondent had no interest or locus standi to file this petition. If a petition to be filed by one Sadhu Ram, who has absolutely no interest in the property and the benefit could be had by Bhag Singh and others, then certainly the answering respondent has no interest in the property and definitely has a locus standi to file a petition. Rest of the paragraph does not concern the answering respondent and, therefore, deserves ho reply.

12. The allegations as made in para 12 of the petition are denied. The vendees were not residing in the same village and it has been verified by the village Sarpanch but so is Bhag Singh and brothers who are real contesting parties, were duly heard by the Director.'

6. Ms. Rita Kohli, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab fairly stated that she is not in a position to support the impugned order which was passed by respondent No. 1, without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

7. In view of the fair statement made by the learned Deputy Advocate General, I have no hesitation to quash the order under challenge on the ground of violation of the rule of audi alteram partem.

8. Otherwise also, I am satisfied that the impugned order is liable to be declared as nullity. A reading of Annexure P5 shows that the Process Server had taken the notice issued by the office of respondent No. 1 to village Sidhuwal on 25.10.1983. On that day, majority of the petitioners were not present and in that view of the matter, the Process Server submitted the following report;

'Sir,

It is submitted that persons from Sr. No. 7 to 27 are not residing at village Sidhuwala. The same has been verified by the Sarpanch and the Chowkidar. Report is submitted.

Shamsher Singh.

25.10.83'

9. However, without taking note of this fact, respondent No. 1 passed the impugned order on 26.10.1983, i.e., one day after the Process Server had visited the village. It is, thus, clear that even those who had been served with the notice of the petition filed by respondent No. 2 did not get effective opportunity of representing their cause before respondent No. 1.

10. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed and order Annexure P5 is quashed. Respondent No. 1 shall now pass fresh order on the petition filed by respondent No. 2. He shall hear the parties and pass a speaking order within 3 months from the date of effective service of notices on all the parties who are given liberty to urge all the points before respondent No. 1.

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 2004 Same Parties Atma Singh and ors. vs Additional Director, Consolidation of ... Same Subject Civil Same Judge G.S. Singhvi, J. Acts & Sections East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmen...

Civil