Quasi-judicial consolidation orders are subject to certiorari when they disregard a final scheme and rest on unsupported facts.

Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 was treated as conferring a quasi-judicial power because it required notice, hearing and a determination of legality or propriety on disputed facts. An order made under that power was therefore amenable to certiorari. The impugned order also rested on unsupported factual assumptions, including alleged shortage of area and lack of voluntary acceptance of repartition, while the confirmed consolidation scheme had already attained finality. The authority could not, in an individual case, disregard that scheme and split the holdings contrary to its terms, so the order was quashable in certiorari.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 was amenable to certiorari and liable to be quashed for error apparent on the face of the record and for acting contrary to the confirmed consolidation scheme.

Analysis: Section 42 empowered the State Government to examine the legality or propriety of orders passed under the Act and to pass appropriate orders after giving notice and an opportunity of hearing. That statutory language, together with the duty to decide disputed questions affecting rights on consideration of facts and circumstances, showed that the power was exercised in a quasi-judicial manner and not as a purely administrative act. An order so made was therefore subject to judicial review by certiorari. The record also showed that the factual basis adopted in the impugned order was unsupported, including the assumed shortage in area and the finding that the concerned right-holder had not willingly accepted the repartition. The confirmed repartition had attained finality under Section 21, and the Director could not, in an individual case, disregard the scheme and split the petitioners' holdings contrary to its terms.

Conclusion: The impugned order was quashable in certiorari and the petitioners succeeded.

---