JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

The present petitioners become aggrieved, from an order drawn on 18.09.2018, appended as Annexure P-7 to the instant writ petition. Annexure P-7 has been drawn by the learned Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, while exercising powers under Section 42 of The East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1948' for short). Through the said order, the learned Commissioner, after noticing certain palpable irregularities, and, gross improprieties, in the finalized consolidation scheme, which became settled qua the Mohal concerned on 30.09.2016, proceeded to annul the apposite consolidation proceedings. Furthermore, the allotments as became made in favour of the allottees concerned were also quashed and set aside, and, the competent officer concerned was directed to redraw consolidation operations in the Mohal concerned.

Submissions

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has made an attack on the said order, the same is premised on the ground, that the said order, is contrary to the order drawn by the consolidation officer, on 04.11.2015, and, as becomes appended as Annexure P-1 to the instant writ petition. He submits, that since therein(s), speaking(s) occur that the estate holders did not make any objections with respect to the proposals, as, made in the draft consolidation scheme. Therefore, the order, as enclosed therein, rather making speakings qua the consensual completion of the consolidation proceedings, in terms of Section 21 (1) of the Act of 1948, but could not be subsequently annulled nor scuttled. In short, he submits that the consensually drawn finalized consolidation scheme rather was unamenable to be quashed and set aside, as untenably done through the impugned order, as enclosed in Annexure P-7.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has also submitted, that since in terms of Section 21 of the Act of 1948, provisions whereof stands extracted hereinafter, a statutory appeal was also unsuccessfully raised against the order finalizing the consolidation scheme, as became drawn by the consolidation officer concerned. Therefore, the learned Commissioner concerned could not exercise any valid jurisdiction, stretching to the extent of his proceeding to rip apart, the consensually drawn finalized consolidation scheme, by the consolidation officer concerned.

"21. Repartition -

(1) The Consolidation Officer shall, after obtaining the advice of the landowners of the estate or estates concerned, carry out repartition in accordance with the scheme of consolidation of holdings confirmed under section 20, and the boundaries of the holdings as demarcated shall be shown on the shajra which shall be published in the prescribed manner in the estate or estates concerned.

(2) Any person aggrieved by the repartition may file a written objection within fifteen days of the publication before the Consolidation Officer who shall after hearing the objection pass such order as he considers proper confirming or modifying the repartition.

(3) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer under sub-section (2) may within the month of that order file an appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) who shall after hearing the appellant pass such order as he considers proper.

(4) Any person aggrieved by the order of Settlement Officer (Consolidation) under sub-section (3), whether made before or after the commenc