The main legal point established in the judgment is that authorities exercising powers under Section 42 of the Act are not empowered to review their earlier orders on merits, and a co-sharer is not entitled to file successive applications under Section 42.

Jasbir Singh, J.

1. In this writ petition, petitioners have laid challenge to the order (Annexure P-2) dated 14.5.1986, vide which, on an application filed by respondent No. 2 under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (in short, "The Act"), directions were issued by respondent No. 1 to the consolidation officer to examine allegation of deficiency in allotment of land to respondent No. 2. It was further directed vide order under challenge that in case any deficiency is found, as alleged, same be good within the frame work of the provisions of Consolidation Scheme and also after hearing all the interested persons.

2. Counsel for the petitioners have vehemently contended that consolidation proceedings were concluded in the village in the year 1956. After about 10 years of the consolidation proceedings, respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 42 of the Act with a prayer that deficiency caused to him, in allotment of land, be made good. That application under Section 42 of the Act, was allowed by the then Director, Consolidation of Holdings vide order dated 17.5.1967 and respondent No. 2 was allotted one standard Kanal and 11 standard Marlas of land out of shamilat deh land of the village. Feeling dissatisfied and claiming more land, review application was filed by respondent No. 2, which was dismissed by the then Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings on 9.1.1969.

3. In the year 1974, respondent No. 2 filed another application under Section 42 of the Act, wherein, he again agitated allotment of less land, during consolidation proceedings. That application was dismissed by the competent authority vide order dated 11.11.1975 (Annexure P-1), by holding that the allotment of land to respondent No. 2 was proper and justified. Respondent No. 2 then by concealing factum of filing earlier three applications, filed another application under Section 42 of the Act, alleging deficiency in allotment of land at the time of consolidation proceedings. In that application, it was claimed that deficiency be made good by allotting land as per his entitlement. That application was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Consolidation Officer to look into the grievance of respondent No. 2 and allot land to him, in case any deficiency is found. Order dated 14.5.1986 (Annexure P-2), is under challenge in this writ petition.

4. Counsel for the petitioners contended that by passing order, Annexure P-2, respondent No. 1 has virtually reviewed earlier orders passed, thrice by the competent authorities, especially, order Annexure P-1, vide which it was specifically held that there is no deficiency in allotment of land to respondent No. 2. Counsel further stated that respondent No. 2 had got passed order under challenge, by concealing factum of filing earlier applications. It was prayed that since there was no deficiency with respondent No. 2 and he has concealed material facts, order, Annexure P-2, being without jurisdiction, be quashed.

5. Prayer made has vehemently been opposed by counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2, by raising preliminary objection that since one of the co-sharers has not been impleaded in the writ petition, the same is liable to be dismissed. He also tried to impress upon this Court that earlier orders, passed by the competent authorities, were not relevant and the order, Annexure P-2 had rightly been passed. He also tried to show that there existed deficiency of land allotted to respondent No. 2 at the time of consolidation proceedings, as such, he was entitled to file an application under Section 42 of the Act.

6. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that present writ petition deserves to be allowed.

7. It is admitted fact that prior to the filing of present application, Annexure R-2, under Section 42 of the Act, on the basis of which, order under challenge was passed, petitioner had already moved three similar