Mr. Rajive Bhalla, J.: - A reference has been made by one of us (Rajive Bhalla, J.) to a larger Bench with respect to the following questions:-

“1. Whether a Director Consolidation, exercising power under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 can decide whether land vests or does not vest in a Gram Panchayat?

2. If answer to the first question is in the negative, then whether an order passed by a Director Consolidation, determining ownership of a Gram Panchayat, affirmed by the High Court and the Supreme Court operates as res-judicata in a subsequent petition, filed under Section 11 of the Act?

3. Whether Section 13-B of the Act empowers the Collector, exercising jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Act, to disregard an order passed by the Director Consolidation, that has been affirmed by the High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court?

4. Whether a plea that the order passed by the Director Consolidation was obtained by fraud can be raised after the order has been affirmed by the High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court?”

2. We have heard counsel for the parties.

3. In order to place the aforementioned questions in their correct perspective, we would briefly refer to the facts.

4. The writ petition has been filed by a set of petitioners supported by a set of proforma respondents, who claim that as they are co-sharers/proprietors in the land in dispute, they filed a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Consolidation of Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Consolidation Act’) for partition of the land. The petitioners etc. pleaded that as before consolidation, the land was “Shamilat Deh Hasab Rasad Malgujari as per jamabandi for the year 1951-52, the land should have been partitioned amongst right holders of this khewat, at the time of consolidation. The Gram Panchayat was arrayed as respondent no.3. The Additional Director Consolidation, Punjab, allowed the petition on 03.09.1996 and directed that the land to be partitioned amongst right holders.

5. Aggrieved by this order, the Gram Panchayat filed Civil Writ Petition No.9162 of 1996, which was dismissed by a Division Bench on 03.07.1996, by passing the following order:-

“No merit, dismissed”.

6. The Gram Panchayat, filed Special Leave Petition No.16450 of 1996, which was dismissed on 02.09.1996, by passing the following order:-

“Upon hearing counsel the court made the following order:-

The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.”

Ram Lal etc., residents/proprietors of the village, filed Civil Writ Petition No.10113 of 1996, impugning the validity of order dated 03.09.1996, passed by the Additional Director Consolidation. The writ petition was dismissed on 21.03.1997, by passing the following order:-

“On 3.3.96 Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.S.Nehra and Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Jhanji, JJ have already upheld the impugned order of the Additional Director in Civil Writ Petition No.9162 of 1996 by passing the following order in limine:-

No merit. Dismissed.

The aforementioned order was upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.16450 of 1996. No interference in writ jurisdiction is called for. Dismissed at this stage of motion hearing.

Sd/- N.C.Jain, Judge.

Sd/- Sarojini Saksena, J

Dated: 21.3.1997 Judges.”

Ram Lal etc., filed Special Leave Petition No.9237 of 1997, which was dismissed on 07.05.1997 and the following order was passed:-

“Upon hearing counsel the court made the following order:-

The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.”

Another set of residents, namely, Chunni Lal and others filed Civil Writ Petition No.7263 of 1997, challenging the order dated 03.03.1996, passed by the Additional Director Consolidation, Punjab, which was dismissed on 10.02.1998 and the following order as passed:-

“Challenge in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 3.6.1996 Annexure P.6, passed by the Addl. Director Consolidation of H