Delegated appellate orders are not revisable under consolidation law, and an unlawful order threatening property can sustain Article 32 relief.

The revision power under section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 does not extend to an appellate order made by the State Government through a duly delegated officer under section 21(4), because such an order is in law the Government's own order and not one passed by an officer in his own right. Treating it as revisable would undermine finality in consolidation proceedings. An order without jurisdiction that inevitably deprives a person of allotted property can also be challenged under Article 32, since a serious and inevitable threat to the fundamental right to property is sufficient to attract constitutional relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the State Government could exercise power under section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, to revise an appellate order passed by its delegate under section 21(4); (ii) Whether the impugned order, if without jurisdiction, could be challenged under Article 32 of the Constitution of India as affecting the petitioner's right to property.

Issue (i): Whether the State Government could exercise power under section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, to revise an appellate order passed by its delegate under section 21(4).

Analysis: The Act distinguishes between an order passed by the Government and an order passed by an officer in his own right. An appeal under section 21(4) is a statutory appeal to the State Government, and when that appellate power is exercised by a delegate under section 41(1), the delegate acts only as the Government's agent. The revisional power in section 42 is directed against orders passed by an officer under the Act in his own right and not against an order which is in law the Government's own order made through delegation. To read section 42 otherwise would permit repeated interference and prevent finality in consolidation proceedings.

Conclusion: The order passed by the Government's delegate in the section 21(4) appeal was not amenable to revision under section 42, and the impugned order was without jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned order, if without jurisdiction, could be challenged under Article 32 of the Constitution of India as affecting the petitioner's right to property.

Analysis: The consolidation scheme substitutes rights in new allotments for the original holdings once possession is delivered under the Act. Allowing the impugned order to stand would inevitably deprive the petitioner of the disputed plots and would operate to his detriment in respect of property rights. A serious and inevitable threat to a fundamental right is sufficient to sustain a petition under Article 32.

Conclusion: The petition was maintainable under Article 32 because the impugned order threatened and would inevitably affect the petitioner's right to property.

Final Conclusion: The impugned revisional order was quashed, and the petitioner obtained relief in the writ petition.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional power expressed to lie against orders passed by an officer under the Act in his own right does not extend to an appellate order made by the Government through a duly delegated officer, and a writ petition under Article 32 lies where an unlawful order inevitably threatens the petitioner's fundamental right to property.

---