Law: Punjab Consolidation of Holdings Act, (IV of 1936)

Section: 22,9,24

Punjab Consolidation of Holdings Act (IV of 1936), Ss. 22, 9 & 24-Expression "in respect of any matter which the Provincial Government or any other officer is by this Act empowered to determine, decide or dispose of in S. 22Grounds on which consolidation proceedings challenged such as could be determined by authorities mentioned in S. 22Party should not rush to civil Court without first exhausting remedy before appellate and revisional authority under Act.   Secretary of State v. Mask & Co. A I R 1940 P C 105 distinguished.   Punjab Consolidation of Holdings Act (IV of 1936), S. 24 Revisional powers of Financial Commissioner-Very wide and unfettered.   Dates of hearing: 19th (2-30 p.m.) and 20th January 1966 (1040 a.m.).  JUDGMENT   INAMULLAH KHAN, C.J.-This is an L. P. A. against the judgment of Kaikaus, J. dated 3-11-1959 whereby he allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs who had challenged the proceedings under the Punjab Consolidation of Holdings Act (IV of 1936), hereinafter called the Act.   The facts giving rise to the present appeal briefly put arethese. The appellants were mortgages of certain land. Proceedings under the Act were taken in respect of the village where the mortgaged land was situate and the mortgagor was granted other land in exchange for the land mortgaged. The land so granted to the mortgagor was inferior in quality. The consolidation proceedings were challenged mainly on the ground that they were without notice to them, behind their back and collusive. The suit was against the mortgagor and the transferees of the mortgaged land.   The trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the learnedDistrict Judge held that the proceedings were vitiated because of want of notice to the plaintiffs, and also on the ground that the land received in exchange was of inferior quality. Some of the defendant-transferees of the land mortgaged to the plaintiffs filed an appeal in the High Court. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the consolidation proceedings did not suffer from want of notice to the plaintiffs; the required notices under rules 6 and 16 of the Punjab…