Jai Lal vs The State of Punjab and others

P.C. Pandit, J.—During the consolidation proceedings that took place in village Bhagwatipur district Rohtak, according to Jai Lal, Petitioner, certain irregularities were committed and the allotment of land made to him was not in accordance with the provisions of the scheme of consolidation. It appears that Ram Singh and his two brothers, Respondents 9 to 11, filed objections before the Consolidation Officer, upon which a compromise was effected between them and Jug Lal, Respondent No. 4. Both the parties went back upon this compromise and appealed to the Settlement Officer, who set aside the compromise arrived at between the parties before the Consolidation Officer. Later on, another compromise was effected on 22nd September 1953, which was signed by the Settlement Officer and the Consolidation Officer, Flying Squad. This agreement was also signed by Mauji Ram, son of the Petitioner. Ram Singh and others again went in appeal u/s 21(4) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The relevant portion of the order passed in appeal is as under:

Now in this appeal both the parties have agreed that they abide by the settlement made before the Consolidation Officer, Flying Squad, and the Settlement Officer and request that the present appeal may be decided according to it. Their statements have been recorded. It may be remarked that Jai Lal had never filed an objection before the Consolidation Officer and, therefore, he had no right of appeal to the Settlement Officer, and nor has he any before this Court.

I accept the appeal in terms of the agreement of the parties dated 22nd September, 1953, which I have also signed.

It may be mentioned that this appeal was decided by Shri Kishan Partap Singh, Assistant Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jullundur City.

Against this, on 16th July, 1956 the Petitioner filed a revision u/s 42 of the Act. The present writ has been filed by the Petitioner alleging that no orders had been passed in the revision filed by him u/s 42 of the Act.

In the return filed by the State, it is averred that it was wrong that the Petitioner''s revision has not been disposed of. The case was heard by the Director of Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, on 28th July, 1957 in the presence of the Petitioner and his son, Mauji Ram. However, the same was adjourned for verification of facts. Thereafter, the case again came up for hearing before the Director on 17th June, 1958, who sent it to the Consolidation Officer, Flying Squad, for examining the Petitioner''s grievances. The Consolidation Officer, Flying Squad, submitted a report dated 24th December, 1958, after the receipt of which, the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, heard the case on 21st November, 1959 in the presence of the Petitioner and his son, Mauji Ram. The case was, however, adjourned for examining the previous record. The case was finally decided by the Additional Director, Consolidation, on 7th October, 1960 after going through the entire record.

Faced with this situation, the only point argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner was that his revision u/s 42 of the Act had also been disposed of by Shri Kishan Partap Singh, who had by then become the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Learned Counsel submitted that Shri Kishan Partap Singh could not sit in judgment over his own order passed u/s 21(4) of the Act.

In my view there is merit in this contention. It is not proper for an officer, sitting on the appellate or the revisional side, to decide a case which he had himself disposed of and against which the appeal or revision had been filed. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, he cannot sit in judgment over his own order. The fact that an appeal or a revision has been filed by a party goes to show that that party was aggrieved against that order and if the same officer again decides it, even though his order may be in accordance with law, it cannot inspire confidence in the litigant and he would feel that justice had not been done to him.

No other point was urged before me.

I would, consequently, accept this petition and quash the order of the Additional Director, Consolidation, dated 7th October, 1960 passed u/s 42 of the Act. In the circumstances of this case, however, I will leave the parties to bear their own costs, in these proceedings.