The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to adhere to the provisions of the East Punjab Holdings Act, including the necessity of impleading co-sharers and the jurisdiction of the Additional Director, Consolidation.

S.S.Nijjar, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari, mandamus or any other writ, order or direction quashing the order passed by respondent No. 1 dated 30.8.1982, Annexure P6.

2. The petitioner is a land-owner of village Chohla Sahib, Tehsil Tarn Taran, District Amritsar. The respondents are also land-owners and the parties have a joint khe-wat. Besides respondents No.2 to II, there are numerous other co-sharers. They have, however, never agitated the matter in any proceedings. The consolidation proceedings in the village started in 1953-54 under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter called "the Act"). Repartition under Section 21(1) of the Act was carried out on 30.3.1954. According to the provisions of the scheme, it was provided that the land of the right holders on the circular road shall be allotted to them and it shall not be disturbed during the consolidation proceedings. The land was originally in possession of the father of the petitioner. After the death of the petitioners father, the land continued to be in possession of the petitioner. In 1974, the petitioner came to know that the land had been allotted to the respondents arid other co-sharers against the provisions of the scheme. He, therefore, filed a petition under Section 42 of the Act before the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings on 29.3.1974, Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents and after hearing the parties, order dated 27.11.1974 was passed. During the proceedings, Hari Singh one of the respondents had made a statement, which was duly recorded. The matter was in fact decided by way of compromise. In the petition under Section 42 of the Act, it was the claim of the petitioner that he should be restored his previous old khasra Nos. 2265 and 2266, which were situated within the Circular Road and had beert allotted to Hari Singh and others, who have been impleaded as respondents. It was Hari Singh, who made the statement that he had no objection if the request of the petitioner is accepted. In fact, both the parties had given a statement in writing, which had been placed on the file. On 24.9.1976, some of the respondents moved an application for setting aside the aforesaid order on the ground that the same had been passed exparte and without affording an opportunity of hearing to them. By order dated 7.2.1978, the Additional Director, Consolidation allowed the application and set aside the order dated 27.11.1974 and directed the petitioner to amend the petition to include all the necessary persons as party so that the case can be decided on merits after hearing both the parties. The hearing of the case was fixed for 8.3.1978. In accordance with the aforesaid order, the petitioner impleaded all the affected persons. Thereafter, the Additional Director, Consolidation passed order on 5.11.1980. The aforesaid order was again challenged by sbme other villagers on the ground that they were not heard. Even the order dated 5.11.1980 has been set aside by the Additional Director, Consolidation by order dated 30.8.1982.

3. The respondents although represented throughout by the counsel have not cared to controvert the factual averments made in the writ petition. No written statement has been filed by any of the respondents.

4. Mr. Mehta submits that no written statement having been filed, the respondents cannot be permitted to orally controvert the pleadings in the petition. Therefore, the petition has to be decided on the basis of the facts as pleaded by the petitioners. I find merit in the submission made by the counsel for the petitioners. A perusal of the record shows that in this case, notice of motion was issued on 6.2.1984. Further proceedings before the revenue authorities had been stayed. On 13.3.1984, no one appeared on behalf of respondents No.9 and 11 inspite of service. Fresh notices were i