The State Government cannot delegate its powers with retrospective effect unless it has been expressly and unequivocally conferred by the legislature.

A.N.Grover, J.

1. The question for determination is whether the State Government could by notification dated 12-2-1958 delegate its powers which it exercises under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, to the Additional Director Consolidation with effect from a prior date, namely, 17-6-1957.

2. The facts are not in dispute. The proceedings relating to consolidation of holdings started in village Amlasinghwala, District Sangrur, on 25-11-1954 under the Pepsu Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 2007 Bk. (which will be referred to as the Pepsu Consolidation Act). On 17-4-1955 a draft scheme was published. The tenants raised certain objections which were dismissed, and the scheme was duly confirmed. The holdings were repartitioned according to the provisions of the scheme. The Boundaries were demarcated on the shajra which was published on 19-9-1955 and possession of the new holdings was transferred to the petitioners in June 1956. A notice had been published on 19-9-1955 by which objections were invited against the repartition. On 26-9-1955 the tenants filed their objections which were dismissed by the Consolidation Officer. An appeal was preferred by the tenants under Section 20(3) of the Pepsu Consolidation Act against the order of the Consolidation Officer This appeal was dismissed on 25-5-1956 by the Settlement Officer. Against the order of the Settlement Officer the tenants filed an appeal before Shri Balvindar Singh, Settlement Officer, Faridkot, to whom powers had been delegated of hearing appeals under Section 20 (4) of the Pepsu Consolidation Act. The said officer made a reference to the Settlement Commissioner who exercised the powers of the State Government under Section 41 of that Act. The Settlement Commissioner remanded the case to the Settlement Officer for making an enquiry on the spot. On 7-2-1957 the Settlement Officer. Faridkot, submitted a report to the Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab. The Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act (which for the sake of brevity will be referred to as the Punjab Consolidation Act), was extended to the territories comprised in the erstwhile State of Pepsu by the Punjab Laws (Extension No. 1) Act, 1957, in April, 1957. On 21-7-1957 the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, made an order in exercise of powers under Section 42 of the Punjab Consolidation Act by which he revoked the scheme which had been previously confirmed and directed that the proceedings should be taken afresh from the evaluation stage. He made certain other directions as well. Admittedly on 21-7-1957 the aforesaid officer could exercise powers of the State Government under Section 21(4) of the Punjab Consolidation Act only, as the same had been delegated to him, but was not competent to exercise the powers under Section 42. A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed by Shivdev Singh and others, Biswedars of village Amlasinghwala, on 11-11-1957 in which the aforesaid order dated 21-7-1957 was challenged inter alia on the ground that the Additional Director had not been empowered to exercise the powers of the State Government under section 42 and his order was without jurisdiction and void. This petition was admitted to a hearing on 19-11-1957 and further proceedings were stayed. On 12-2-1953 the following notification was issued:

"No. 283-DIV-5S (CH)/1167. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 41 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, the Governor of Punjab is pleased to notify that with effect from 17-6-1957 the powers of the State Government under Section 42 of the Act have also been delegated to the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, P. S. MULTANI Under Secretary to Government Punjab, Forests and Game Preservation Department."

The State did not file an