Sale of land with the sanction of the Consolidation Officer does not violate Section 30 of the Act and the purchased area can be reckoned into the major portion of the vendee.

D.K.Mahajan, J.

1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and is directed against the order of the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, dated 18th June 1964 (Annexure `H) and that of Assistant Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, dated 18th July, 1963 (Annexure `G).

2. The petitioner owned a considerable area of land in village Mahlan in a compact Block known as Chamariwala fields. During the consolidation proceedings which started in this village in the year 1958 the petitioner purchased the whole of the land of one Gajjan Singh, a right-holder in the village with the permission of the Consolidation Officer on 21st February, 1958 and 10th March, 1958. Both these purchases were evidenced by a registered deed. A mutation on the basis of this registered deed was entered by the Consolidation authorities and was sanctioned by the Consolidation Officer. The mutation orders are annexures `C and `D. As the petitioners major portion of area was 100 per cent because he was owner of Chamariwala fields, he was given land at his major portion in the re-paration in lieu of the land purchased by him from Gajjan Singh and this land was consolidated with his land at the major portion. Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 were aggrieved by the order of the re-partition and prayed that they should be given land of one Kartar Singh and others who had been wrongly fitted at Balbir Singhs major portion. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 26th April 1961 partially accepted the appeal of respondents Nos 5 to 8 and gave them some land at their major portion by taking some area from Kartar Singh and others. Suffice it to say that no change was effected so far as the petitioner is concerned (see annexure `S). Kartar Singh and others who are aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation officer, filed an appeal to the Settlement Officer. The Settlement Officer allowed the appeal of Kartar Singh and others and held that since the percentage of Kartar Singh and others was 27% and held that of Balbir Singh and other respondents Nos. 5 to 8 was 20% the order of the Consolidation Officer in dislocating the tucks of Kartar Singh and others was illegal. He accordingly set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer and after certain changes which do not affect the petition in a large measure restored the parties to the position enjoyed by them after the re-partition. Balbir Singh and respondents 6 to 8 who were aggrieved against the order of the Settlement Officer filed an appeal before the Assistant Director. The Assistant Director allowed the appeal vide his order dated 18th July 1963 and effected a change in the tucks of the petitioner. The change effected was in this manner half of the land of Balbir Singh and others (respondents Nos. 5 to 8) was given to the petitioner in exchange of half of the land purchased by the petitioner from Gajjan Singh (see Annexure `G). It was clearly stated in annexure `G that Amar Singh, the petitioner had purchased all the ownership of Gajjan Singh. The petitioner who is aggrieved against the order, moved the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 hereinafter called the Act) in revision. This petition was rejected by the Additional Director vide his order dated 18th June, 1964 (Annexure `H).

3. The two grounds prevailed with the Additional Director were that the provisions of Section 30 of the Act had been violated and the area purchased by the petitioner from Gajjan Singh could not be counted towards the major portion area of the petitioner. It is against this order that the present petition has been preferred by Amar Singh.

4. Mr. Tirath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised two contentions before me. His first contention is that the provisions of Section 30 have not been violated and the assumption made by the Additional Director on