1957 (12) TMI 40 - HC - Indian Laws

Court quashes Director's order violating scheme provisions, grants costs to petitioners

Fauja Singh Ram Singh And Ors. Versus Director Consolidation Of. on

The court allowed the petition and quashed the Director Consolidation of Holdings' order dated 15-12-1956. The court found errors in the Director's ... - Issues Involved:1. Legality and validity of the Director Consolidation of Holdings' order dated 15-12-1956.2. Assumption of facts regarding the shortage of land to Bhan Singh.3. Consent of Bhan Singh to accept inferior quality land.4. Compliance with the scheme provisions during re-partition.5. Nature of the order under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948.6. Grounds for interference by certiorari.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality and Validity of the Director Consolidation of Holdings' Order:The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the order made by the Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, on 15-12-1956. The Director's order was based on the assumption that Bhan Singh had not received a fair deal during the re-partition and ordered a reallocation of land between Bhan Singh and Fauja Singh. The petitioners argued that the Director's order was contrary to the scheme confirmed in 1954 and that Bhan Singh had initially agreed to the allocation.2. Assumption of Facts Regarding the Shortage of Land to Bhan Singh:The petitioners contended that the Director's statement about the shortage of 75 kanals of land to Bhan Singh was incorrect. According to the written statement of respondent No. 1, Bhan Singh received 55 kanals and 14 marlas less of superior quality land, not 75 kanals. The petitioners argued that the Director's order was vitiated by this incorrect assumption of facts.3. Consent of Bhan Singh to Accept Inferior Quality Land:The petitioners argued that there was no material on record to show that Bhan Singh had not agreed willingly to accept the inferior quality land. Bhan Singh had not filed any objections during the re-partition process and had signed the document agreeing to the allocation. The Director's assumption that Bhan Singh could not have agreed willingly was not supported by any evidence, leading to an error apparent on the face of the record.4. Compliance with the Scheme Provisions During Re-partition:The petitioners contended that the Director's order violated the scheme provisions, which did not allow for the splitting of holdings into multiple parcels. The Director's order resulted in the petitioners' holdings being split into four or five parcels, contrary to the scheme. The respondents argued that the scheme provisions could not stand in the way of an order under Section 42, but the court found this position untenable.5. Nature of the Order Under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948:The respondents argued that the order under Section 42 was administrative and not quasi-judicial, relying on the observations in Tara Singh v. Director, Consolidation of Holdings Punjab. However, the court examined the provisions of the Act and concluded that the power exercised under Section 42 involved a judicial process, requiring a determination of facts and affecting the rights of parties. Therefore, the order could be challenged by a writ of certiorari.6. Grounds for Interference by Certiorari:The court found that there was a wrong assumption of facts regarding the shortage to Bhan Singh and the excess received by the petitioners. Additionally, there was no evidence to support the Director's finding that Bhan Singh had not agreed willingly to accept the inferior quality land. The court also noted that the Director's order violated the scheme provisions, which had become final under Section 21(4) of the Act. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and quashed the Director's order dated 15-12-1956.Conclusion:The petition was allowed, and the order of the Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, dated 15-12-1956, was quashed. The petitioners were entitled to their costs in the court.