S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

( 1 ) IN these writ petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of india, the petitioners question orders made by the Financial Commissioner in consolidation proceedings, in terms of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation ) Act, 1948, as extended to Delhi (called "the act") in Village Mundka, Delhi started in 1975. A scheme of consolidation was drawn up inviting applications for residential plots in the extended Lal Dora within thirty days from 1. 4. 76. The scheme was published and was confirmed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) on 26. 7. 1976. In terms of the confirmed scheme, repartition of residential plots within the extended Lal Dora as well as agricultural lands were effected, by authorities under the Act.

( 2 ) A resolution was passed by the village panchayat on 29. 4. 1979 suggesting variations in the scheme and on 8. 5. 1979 the Settlement Officer issued an order, holding inter alia that:

(1) Claims in applications allowed by the predecessors would be included in the scheme. (2) In addition to the applicants indicated in Annexure II (to the Scheme) there were some other applications submitted by the Haqdars in April, 1976 but were not included in the Scheme; they could also be included in the Scheme.

( 3 ) AS demands of right-holders had to be met with, amendments to the scheme of consolidation were proposed. The draft amended scheme was published on 06. 08. 80. This was subsequently dropped by the Settlement officer (Consolidation) on 22. 05. 82 on the ground that there was no area for allotment and that a few right holders had opposed the allotment. This order was set aside by the Financial Commissioner, when challenged before him. Again, after remand, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) did not comply with the order of the financial Commissioner. Some Villagers, and right holders, feeling aggrieved by the order approached the Financial Commissioner. The revision petitions, in the second round, however, were rejected, on the view that once the scheme was confirmed, there was no scope for its amendment.

( 4 ) A batch of writ petitions were filed; they were heard by a Single Judge of this Court, who disposed them by order dated 23. 11. 1984. The court found that the claim of the three writ petitioners before it, had to be considered; the authorities were directed to proceed with the proposal to amend the Scheme in accordance with the observations made in the judgment.

( 5 ) IN order to comply with the directions, of this court, the proposal for amendment of the scheme was again revived. Consequently, the earlier amended scheme was allowed and confirmed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) on 4. 3. 1985 with the remark that there was no necessity for undertaking the circuitous procedure in view of the order of the High Court. Allotment of residential plots was made out of the land included through the amendment within the extended Lal Dora.

( 6 ) APPARENTLY some more eligible right-holders were left out. They claimed to be entitled to plots according to orders of this Court. A need was felt to earmark land for allotment to persons, whose cases were still pending before this Court and some more area for providing the passages to various plots had to be allotted. In view of these circumstances, the proposal for further amendment of the scheme of consolidation to include an area of 92 bighas 7 biswas within the extended Lal Dora was drawn up by the Consolidation Officer on 20. 05. 1988. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) accepted the proposal on 15. 06. 88. Pursuant to this amendment of the scheme, allotments of plots were made to the concerned right holders according to the demand approved earlier.

( 7 ) THE confirmation of the scheme, was challenged through two revision petitions under section 42 of the Act being case No. 215/89 - Shri Surjan Singh and Others Vs. S. O (C) and another and case No. 216/89- Shri Hari Singh and Anr. Vs. S.