The power of the State Government under S. 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, extends equally to any order passed by its officers whether of confirmation of a scheme or of repartition and whether the power is exercised by the officer making the order acting under authority expressly given to him under the Act or it is delegated to him by the State Government under S. 41 of the Act.

Judgment

SARKAR, J. : (for self, S. K Das and Raghubar Dayal, JJ.)- This petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution asks for a writ quashing an order purported to have been made under S. 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. It is said that the order was entirely without jurisdiction and if allowed to stand, it would deprive the petitioner of certain lands and so wrongfully affect his fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution.

2. The question raised by this petition depends on a construction of certain provisions of the Act winch we shall later quote. A general idea of some of the purposes and provisions of the Act will however be useful for deciding that question and may be given now.

3. Shortly put, one of the objects of the Act appears to be to pool together the entire lands held by different persons in a village and redistribute the same among them on a more utilitarian basis in accordance with a scheme learned for the purpose. The final result that the Act achieves is that instead of his original holding a person is given some other holding Section 14 gives the State Government the power to declare by notification its intention to frame a scheme for the consolidation of holdings in any area and thereupon to appoint a Consolidation Officer who is to prepare the scheme. Section 19 provides for publication of the draft scheme prepared by the Consolidation Officer and for objections thereto being made by persons likely to be affected. It also provides that the Consolidation Officer will submit the scheme with the objections and his suggestions with regard to them to the Settlement Officer and for republication of the scheme with such amendments as may have been made. Section 20 empowers the State Government to appoint Settlement Officers (Consolidation) in this judgment referred to as Settlement Officers. It further provides that if no objections are received to the draft scheme when first published or to the amended scheme when republished, the Settlement Officer shall confirm the scheme and if any objections are received he may after considering the objections, confirm the scheme with or without modification. It lastly provides that upon confirmation the scheme shall be published again. Sub-section (1) of S. 21 provides that the Consolidation Officer shall carry out a re-partition in accordance with the scheme as confirmed under S. 20. Sub-section (2) provides that any person aggrieved by the repartition may file an objection before the Consolidation Officer. Sub- section (3) gives to the person aggrieved by the order of Consolidation Officer made under sub-section (2), a right to file an appeal before the Settlement Officer. Sub-section (4) provides that "any person aggrieved by the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) under sub-section (2) may within sixty days of that order appeal to the State Government." Section 22 requires the Consolidation Officer to prepare a new record of rights giving effect to the repartition as finally sanctioned under S. 21.

4. A scheme under the Act had been framed for village Palrikalan where the petitioner held some lands. The petitioner had no objection to the scheme as such but he had taken objection to the repartition made under it by the Consolidation Officer on the ground that the repartition was not in accordance with the scheme. The petitioner contended that under the scheme he was entitled to retain plots Nos. 635 and 636 which originally belonged to him and to get some more land adjacent to them in exchange for other lands held by him in the village while under the repartition made by the Consolidation Officer he was being deprived of those plots and was being given lands elsewhere. With the merits of this and the rival contention we are not concerned in this petition. The petitioner s contention was rejected by the Consolidation Officer and he filed an appeal under S. 21(3) before the Settlement Officer but that