1. The point raised in this petition by Nar Singh and others, who are residents of village Mehtabgarh is of considerable importance in consolidation proceedings and I am of the view that it should be decided by a larger Bench.
2. The villages of Mehtabgarh, Aujan and Ratt Khera have been the subject-matter of consolidation. The consolidation operations in village Mehtabgarh were concluded in 1950 and those in Aujan in 1961, while they are still in progress in village Ratta Khera. These three villages are situated apart from each other and constitute three points in a triangle. When the consolidation started in Mehatbgarh village, it was made a part of the scheme that village paths should be provided for going to and coming from Aujan and Ratta Khera. It was considered that a point in the centre of the triangle the three points oil which were represented by villages Mehtabgarh, Aujan and Ratta Khera, should form': a convenient point to which road should converge from the three different villages.
This principle was accepted in the schemes of both villages Mehtabgarh and Aujan and reservations were accordingly made. The scheme to this effect was prepared, confirmed and enforced so far as Mehtabgarh and Aujan villages are concerned With regard to Ratta Khera, the scheme had been prepared and confirmed but before its enforcement and adjustment has been made to provide for the passage from this village to Mehtabgarh through a different route which would involve further reservations of the lands of the different right-holders in village Mehtabgarh.
3. Mr. Grewal the learned counsel for the petitioners who are right-holders of village Mehtabgarh, submits that the order of re-alignment made under Section 42 is not justified by its provisions. It is contended by him that while an order for preparation or confirmation of the scheme is made a subject-matter of revision under Section 42 its enforcement is not. Under Section 42, the State Government 'may at any time for purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed, scheme prepared or confirmed or repartition made by any officer under this Act, call for and examine the record of any case pending before or disposed of by such officer and may pass such necessary order in reference thereto as it thinks fit.
According to the learned counsel, wide as the amplitude of the section is, there is definite restriction placed on the powers of the State Government so far as a scheme is concerned. A scheme could be revised in the stages of its preparation or confirmation. Once a scheme is prepared and confirmed, its enforcement cannot be arrested by an order passed by the State Government under Section 42. The contention of the learned counsel finds support from the plain language of the statute but it may be argued that the enforcement of a scheme might fall under an 'order... or repartition made'. As I have said before, the matter is of sufficient importance in consolidation proceedings and it would be in the fitness of things if it is decided by a larger Bench.
4. I would, therefore, submit these papers to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench for disposal of this case.
(The Division Bench consisting of S.B. Capoor and Inder Dev Dua, JJ., formulated and referred two questions to a Full Bench. Order of Division Bench in paras 5 to 8 has been omitted for the purpose of this report).