1. This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of a Fun Bench of this Court dismissing a writ petition by which the order of the Additional Director, Consolidation, was challenged in the matter of adjustment of certain plots.
2. The main question of law involved the consideration of the true scope and ambit of the powers of the State Government or the Additional Director under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 as also the procedure to be followed while ordering readjustments or changes in repartition which were in contravention of the scheme of consolidation. This matter had been considered in a number of decisions of this Court including a previous Full Bench decision and the question was whether the majority judgment of the Full Bench in Director, Consolidation of Holdings v. Johri Mall, 1961-63 Pun LR 93=(AIR 1961 Punj 208) (FB) contained the correct enunciation of principles on the point Narula J. and myself were not inclined to agree with the same and, therefore it would have been necessary to have referred the matter to a larger Bench. The Full Bench in the present case did not follow that course as it was abundantly clear that the petition would ultimately fail on the ground that the impugned order bad not resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
3. In the petition for leave counsel for the petitioner has now invited attention tothe observations made in Joginder Singh v. Deputy Custodian General, Evacuee Property, Mussoorie (Civil Appeal No. 457 of 1958) decided by the Supreme Court on 26th March 1962 (SC). These observations may be reproduced:-
'As regards the first point, it raises a general question. The jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court by Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is wide and the High Court and a fortiori this Court, while hearing an appeal from the High Court's decision, is entitled to exercise it where it finds that an inferior tribunal has acted beyond its jurisdiction. Where an inferior tribunal acts beyond its jurisdiction its action necessarily results in injustice to the party against whom action has been taken. For, justice has to be done according to law.'
It is contended that the Full Bench could not have dismissed the writ petition as has been done in the present case on the ground that the action of the inferior Tribunal had not resulted in injustice although such Tribunal had acted beyond its jurisdiction. This decision of their Lordships was not brought to our notice when the matter was argued before the Full Bench.
4. It is not possible to accede to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that we should give leave merely because our judgment cannot be regarded to be correct in the light of the above observations. Moreover the case cannot be certified as a fit one for appeal since the point now being raised is already settled by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. The petition is, therefore, dismissed but in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.
P.C. Pandit, J.
5. I agree that this petition be dismissed with no order as to costs.
R.S. Narula, J.
6. I agree.