Judgment

K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J.:- In all these appeals the question that arises for consideration is whether the tenants also are entitled to be heard by the concerned authority while deciding a dispute of title between the persons claiming to be the owners and the Gram Panchayat in respect of Shamlat Deh under S. 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (Act for short). According to the averments, the appellants claim to have been cultivating the land as lessees which land has been described in the revenue records as Shamlat Deh owned by the Gram Panchayat. Thus they claim to be tenants of the Gram Panchayat in respect of the land in dispute. Before the High Court they challenged the order of Director of Consolidation of Holdings (Director for short) passed under S. 42 of the Act. The said order was passed by the Director in a petition filed by persons claiming to have shares in the Shamlat Deh which shares were entered in the cultivation column as maqbuza malkan. Their contention before the Director was that the Consolidation authorities were not competent to change the title of the "right-holders" and that whatever was entered in the Wajab-ul-Arz had to be made a part of the scheme of the village and had to be adhered to by the Consolidation authorities during re-partition proceedings. Secondly they also challenged the mutation. The Director accepted the contention and held that the Panchayat cannot lay any claim to the area since the same was mentioned in the Jamabandi to be in possession of the Khewatdars namely the right-holders and therefore the Panchayat had no right to the land. The Director remanded the matter to the Consolidation authority with a direction that 20 acres of the area should be allowed to the Gram Panchayat and the rest should be partitioned among the right-holders namely the Khewatdars. It may be mentioned here that the Panchayat pursued the matter further unsuccessfully. Ultimately the special leave petition filed by it was also dismissed by this Court.

2. The appellants, however, filed writ petitions before the High Court and contended that since they were in possession of the suit land as lessees under the Gram Panchayat, they were entitled to be heard before any order could be passed adversely affecting them and since no such opportunity was given to them nor they were made parties to the petition under Sec. 42 of the Act, the order of the Director was liable to be quashed. They, also contended that they had the locus standi to file the writ petitions. The High Court, however, dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants holding that in view of two earlier decisions of the same High Court namely Joginder Singh v. Director of Consolidation of Holdings, AIR 1989 Punj & Har 234 and Nek Singh v. State of Punjab through Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, C.W.P. No. 2820/86 dated 12-8-86 the petitioners cannot claim to have any locus standi to file the writ petitions and accordingly dismissed them. L.P.As. filed in some of these matters against the order in writ petitions were also dismissed. Hence the present appeals.

3. At this juncture, it maybe mentioned that Civil Appeal No. 3429 / 90 is filed against the judgment in Joginder Singhs case, AIR 1989 Punj & Har 234) (supra) in the following circumstances. In Joginder Singhs case the Division Bench after considering the legal provisions held that the land in question did not vest in the Panchayat. Then with reference to the contention of the petitioners that they being the tenants of the Panchayat in respect of this land in question are interested parties and the Director should have also made them parties to the petition under Section 42 of the Act, the Division Bench at one stage made an observation that they could have approached the Director for passing a fresh order after affording them an opportunity of being heard. But the later observations would show that the Director could n