PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

                                                Gram Panchayat

                                                         Vs

                                                      Har Lal

                                   Letters Patent Appeal No. 556 of 1968

                                    (D.K. Mahajan and Bal Raj Tuli, JJ.)

                                                    19.11.1970

                                                  JUDGMENT

Bal RajTuli, J.
1. This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment of a learned
Single Judge of this Court passed on September 25, 1968, in C.W. 1067 of 1967. The writ-
petitioners had prayed for the quashing of the order of the Additional Director, Consolidation of
Holdings, Haryana, at Gurgaon, dated December 30, 1966, on the ground that it had been passed
without issuing any notice to them or affording them an opportunity of hearing although it
affected their rights in the land and thus, the proviso to Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings
(Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act),
was violated. The learned Single Judge found force in this submission and quashed the impugned
order. He further remanded the case to the Additional Director for redecision on merits.

2. The admitting note of the Bench admitting the Letters Patent appeal shows that it was stated
by the appellants that the respondents, that is, the writ-petitioners, got into possession of the land
after the impugned order of the Additional Director under Section 42 and there was no occasion
to give them notice of the application. At the hearing of the appeal before us, it has been admitted
that the respondent-writ petitioners were in possession of the land when the order was made by
the Additional Director under Section 42 of the Act. The plea that has been put forward is that
the land had not been allotted to them and they had taken forcible possession of the land. In the
return filed by the State it was stated that they had got into the possession as tenants-at-will under
the Gram Panchayat. In view of these fActs, we are of the opinion that the said respondents were
parties interested in the decision of the application under Section 42 of the Act, and a notice had
to be given to them to appear and show cause against the granting of the application.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants has, however, submitted that the words "parties
interested" in the proviso to Section 42 of the Act, only relate to the rightholders and not the
tenants or other persons in possession of the land otherwise than as rightholders. We regret our
inability to agree to that submission. The words "parties interested" in the proviso mean persons
whose rights of ownership of possession or any other rights in the land will be effected by the
adjudication under Section 42 of the Act. The reason is that no order adverse to the interest of
any person whatever can be made without issuing notice to him and affording him an opportunity
of being heard and that is the purpose and the intention of the proviso. It cannot be confined only
to the rightholders. The tenants have also a right and to secure that, in case of any other land
being allotted to the landowner under whom they are tenants, their rights in that land are
protected and that the land allotted in lieu of the land going to be taken away from them is such a
land which is cultivable and their interest as tenants will not in any way suffer. The learned Judge
has not decided the merits of the case which he has left to the Additional Director to decide
afresh in the presence of the writ-petitioners. No fault can, therefore, be found with that order.
We accordingly find no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same with costs. Counsel's fee Rs.
100.00.

Appeal dismissed.