Final cancellation orders and writ rehearing principles allow delayed implementation and hearing of unimpleaded affected persons.

An order is final when, read as a whole, it shows a concluded decision to cancel an allotment, even if implementation is postponed pending appeal. The later delay in implementation did not prevent the order from being acted on after 15 June 1952 because the relevant saving restriction was deleted by amendment. In writ jurisdiction, the High Court could entertain a second petition to hear persons affected by the earlier order who had not been impleaded, where this was needed to satisfy natural justice and prevent miscarriage of justice.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order of 9 October 1951 was a final order cancelling the allotment of the appellants' lands. (ii) Whether the order could be implemented after 15 June 1952 in view of the repeal and saving provisions in the relevant rules, and whether the High Court lacked power under Article 226 to entertain the second petition and reconsider the matter for persons not impleaded earlier.

Issue (i): Whether the order of 9 October 1951 was a final order cancelling the allotment of the appellants' lands.

Analysis: The order, read as a whole, showed a concluded decision to oust the non-fauji allottees to make room for fauji families. The fact that immediate action was postponed because an appeal was pending did not make the order tentative or inchoate. The appellants had themselves treated the order as final by seeking its cancellation in the writ petition, and they could not later contend otherwise.

Conclusion: The order was a final cancellation order and not merely a proposal.

Issue (ii): Whether the order could be implemented after 15 June 1952 in view of the repeal and saving provisions in the relevant rules, and whether the High Court lacked power under Article 226 to entertain the second petition and reconsider the matter for persons not impleaded earlier.

Analysis: Rule 49 initially contained a saving clause and a restriction that orders made under the repealed rules would not have effect unless implemented by 15 June 1952, but the proviso was later deleted by amendment. The result was that non-implementation by that date did not prevent later implementation. As to Article 226, nothing in it barred the High Court from entertaining a rehearing where the prior order affected persons who were not parties, and the second petition was entertained to satisfy the requirements of natural justice and avoid miscarriage of justice.

Conclusion: The order remained capable of implementation after 15 June 1952, and the High Court was not without jurisdiction to entertain the second petition.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on all substantial grounds, and the judgment under challenge was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A decision is final when it clearly evinces a concluded determination despite tentative wording, and a High Court exercising writ jurisdiction may entertain a rehearing to hear affected persons who were not parties to the original proceeding.

---