AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral)
These two appeals arise out of a common judgment and can, thus, be disposed of by one order. A few facts as relevant for the decision of the controversy may be briefly noticed.
Darshan Singh and Gurnam Singh own land in Village Noorpur. The consolidation proceedings had taken place during the year 1958. Aggrieved by the allocation of land, some dispute was raised which was decided by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated January 13, 1959. Still not satisfied, the landowners had approached the Settlement Officer. Notice was given to the concerned parties. Darshan Singh and Gurnam Singh who are parties in these two appeals had appeared before the Settlement Officer. Vide order dated May 18, 1959, directions for adjustment of the land allotted to different persons were given. A copy of this order is on the record of these two appeals as Annexure P1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Gurnam Singh had filed an appeal under Section 24(4) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1948. He did not implead any of the private parties who had appeared before the Settlement Officer and whose names were duly mentioned in the order dated May 18, 1959. The Assistant Director accepted the appeal filed by Gurnam Singh. A copy of the order dated September 9, 1959 passed by the Officer is at Annexure P3. Aggrieved by this order, Darshan Singh filed a petition under Section 42 in the year 1980. He contended that the order passed in his favour on May 18, 1959 by the Settlement Officer had been upset by the Assistant Director without any notice to him. His petition was accepted by the Additional Director vide order dated March 27, 1981. Aggrieved by this order, Gurnam Singh filed CWP No. 1949 of 1981. Vide order dated August 7, 1992, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated March 27, 1981 passed by the Additional Director. The case was remanded for a fresh decision after hearing the affected persons.
Aggrieved by the directions given by the learned Single Judge, Darshan Singh has filed LPA No. 970 of 1992 with the prayer that the order dated March 27, 1981 should be sustained. On the other hand, Gurnam Singh has filed LPA No. 1281 of 1992 with the prayer that the order dated March 27, 1981 having been set aside, no further direction for a fresh decision after hearing the counsel for the parties was made out.
Today, at the hearing, counsel for Darshan Singh, appellant in LPA No. 970 of 1992 and Mr. R.S. Bindra, counsel for the Gurnam Singh appellant in LPA No. 1281 of 1992 are agreed and have prayed that the orders dated September 9, 1959 and March 27, 1981, copies of which are on record as Annexures P3 and P6 be set aside. The matter be remanded to the Assistant Director for a fresh decision after hearing both sides.
In the circumstances of the case, the prayer made by the counsel is very fair. It is the admitted position that Gurnam Singh had challenged the order dated May 8, 1959 passed by the Settlement Officer in his appeal before the Assistant Director. However, he had not impleaded Darshan Singh or any other person who was likely to be affected by that decision. Thus, the order passed by the Assistant Director on September 9, 1959 was an ex parte order so for as various other landowners including Darshan Singh were concerned. This order was set aside by the Additional Director. Now as the counsel for the parties are agreed, both orders are set aside. The matter is remitted to the Assistant Director for a fresh decision in accordance with law. The needful shall be done within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Assistant Director shall issue notice to the parties for further proceedings.
Both the appeals are, accordingly, disposed of.