Mehar Singh, J.

1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution there are twenty-nine petitioners belonging to village Gulalta in Tehsil Ferozepore Jhirka of Gurgaon District. Consolidation of holdings began in that village with the publication of a notification for that purpose under section 14 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (East. Punjab Act 50 of 1948), hereinafter to be referred as the Act, sometime in 1956. On appointment of the Consolidation Officer under that very section, after advice of the land-owners of the estate, he prepared on May 4, 1957, a scheme for consolidation of holdings in that estate. After some objections to the scheme under Section 19 of the Act, certain changes were made in it, and it was then finally confirmed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) under Section 20 of the Act. There was an advisory committee of the landowners in the village, and Zore Khan, Nur Mohd and Zen Khan, respondents 4 to 6, were members of that committee. In pursuance of and in conformity with the scheme, repartition was carried out on November 12, 1957, according to Section 21 (1) of the Act. A number of landowners, including respondents 4 to 6, stated in the return by respondents 1 to 3, the State of Punjab, the Director of Consolidation of Holdings, and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), filed 115 objections to the repartition before the Consolidation Officer under Sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the Act. After the decision of those objections the land-owners took possession of the new holdings allotted to them, some in the end of 1957 and others in the beginning of 1958. After that under Section 22 of the Act a new record-of-rights in that respect was prepared for the year 1957-58. The proceedings for the Consolidation of holdings in the village came to an end on or about February 16, 1959. On July 30, 1960, the Director of Consolidation of Holdings made a recommendation to the State Government for amendment of the scheme of consolidation of holdings in the village under Section 36 of the Act so as to provide a separate tak or plot for allotment for chahi (well-irrigated) area. This recommendation of respondent 2 was accepted by respondent 1 on March 28, 1961. Pursuant to the order of respondent 1, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) respondent 3, amended the scheme under Section 36 of the Act, follow ed by proper and due proceedings under the provisions of the Act for confirmation of the amended scheme. It was duly published in the village on September 21, 1961. So far the facts are not disputed.

2. The petitioners aver that respondents 4 to 6, though they were members of the advisory committee and responsible for the original scheme, with their friends and relations, for personal ends and to exhibit their influence, approached certain officers, probably the consolidation officer Flying Squad, and on that that officer made a move to favour those respondents. "The result was that without the petitioners being heard, recommendation was made by respondent 2 to respondent 1 and accepted by the latter for amendment of the scheme of consolidation of holdings in the village. This is denied in the return of respondents 1 to 3. It is pointed out that some land-owners of the village made applications under Section 42 of the Act praying that as they had not been given well-irrigated area in lieu of such area owned by them before repartition, so they be given relief in that respect. Their applications were sent to respondent 3 and it was thereafter that the matter was considered by respondent 2 and the recommendation made for amendment of the scheme which was accepted by respondent 1. This difference between the parties is not at all material for the purposes of the matter that arises for consideration out of the petition of the petitioners.

3. The other matter that may be noted here is that, while according to the petitioners the land-owners were s