The Court affirmed that a guardian can effectively represent minors in administrative proceedings, and the Consolidation Officer has jurisdiction to rectify land allotments based on clerical errors, upholding the validity of ongoing consolidation processes.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Dhari Singh, J.

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

"A) Quash and Set aside the Impugned Order dated 07.04.2022 passed by the Respondent no.1 in the Proceedings bearing no.209A/2003 titled as "Smt Jallo Devi & Ors vs Pratap Singh & Ors" upholding the Orders dated 30.04.1998 passed by the Respondent no.2 in Proceedings bearing no.18/97-98 titled as "Smt.Jallo Devi & Ors vs Sh.Lal Chand & Ors".

B) Call for the Records of Proceedings bearing no.209A/2003 titled as "Smt Jallo Devi & Ors vs Pratap Singh & Ors" adjudicated by the Respondent No.1 and the Records of proceedings bearing no. l8/97-98 titled as "Smt.Jallo Devi & Ors vs Sh.Lal Chand & Ors" adjudicated by the Respondent no.2."

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The facts for the disposal of the present case are that proceedings pertaining to the consolidation of land holdings was initiated in Village Bijwasan, Delhi in the year 1975-76 and during the consolidation of holdings, land of Khasra No. 691/1 Min. admeasuring 11 Biswas was allotted to one Shri Sher Singh, being the predecessor-in-interest of the Petitioners herein. The said consolidation was made in accordance with the provisions of East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred as the "Act"). After the allotment of Khasra No. 691/1 Min. admeasuring 11 Biswas in the year 1975-76, Late Sh. Sher Singh entered into possession of the said land.

3. In the year 1996, one Sh. Lal Chand i.e., predecessor-in-interest of Respondents No. 4(a)-(c), filed an application before the S.D.M/Tehsildar for demarcation of his plots bearing Khasra No. 685, Khasra No. 116 and centre of Way No. 105/22/2, 219, 220, 221, 685, 285/5, 116/8/2, 105/22 and 101/8/2 in village Bijwasan. Thereafter, the Consolidation Officer, i.e., Respondent No. 2 initiated proceedings on the said application for which, the report was called from Halqa Patwari and on the basis of the said report dated 26th May 1996, Respondent No. 2 passed the order dated 23rd December 1996, by way of which the said land of Khasra No. 691 was taken away from the Petitioners and allotted to the Respondents No. 4(a)-(c) by the Consolidation Officer, i.e., the Respondent No. 2 herein.

4. However, the said order came under challenge by the Petitioners through a revision petition u/s 42 of the Act before the Financial Commissioner, i.e., Respondent No. 1 herein, on the ground that the said order was passed against a dead person. The Financial Commissioner allowed the revision petition and remanded back the matter to the Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 12th August 1997. On being remanded back, Respondent No. 2 passed the orders dated 30th April 1998 wherein, the said piece of land was again allotted to the Respondents No. 4(a)-(c). The Respondent No. 2 acceded to the request made by the Respondents No. 4(a)-(c) who contended that there was sufficient deficiency in his khata which can rightly be made good by allotting 11 biswas out of the adjoining plot of land bearing Khasra No. 691/1 because any other allotment would be against the spirit of the principles of consolidation.

5. On being aggrieved of the said order dated 30th April 1998, the Petitioners further filed a civil suit against the order, which was held to be not maintainable. Thereafter, the Petitioners again challenged the said order dated 30th April 1998 by filing Revision petition before the Cou