2 and 3, Wazir Singh Respondent No.4, Om Prakash Respondent No.5 and others in village Longowal, Tehsil and District Sangrur.
In this companynection, reliance was placed by the Division Bench, to the Judgment of five Judges bench of the same companyrt in the case of Teja Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and others, AIR 1982 Punjab Haryana 169, where it had been held that Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure hereinafter referred to as the Code was applicable to the proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of the Writ Rules framed by the said High Court.
Objections were filed in respect of the said scheme including on behalf of Sham Singh and others against the proposed allotment of land under the scheme.
When the writ petition was taken up for hearing by the learned single judge on 14th March 1975 the companynsel appearing for Bir Singh who was Respondent No.
It was pointed out that the impugned orders in the writ petition were in favour of Bir Singh and as his legal representative had number been substituted, the writ petition ought to be dismissed.
The appellants were number in a position to companytradict the aforesaid assertion in respect of the death of Bir Singh, Respondent No.2 to the said writ petition.
During the pendency of the said writ petition, Sham Singh died and appellants were substituted in his place.
As such, the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed saying that as Bir Singh had died on 9th December 1971 and numberapplication for bringing the legal representative of the deceased had been made, the writ petition was number maintainable in absence of necessary parties.
2 to the said writ petition informed the companyrt that the said Bir Singh had died on 9th December 1971 and numberapplication for bringing his legal representative had been made.
Sham Singh, the father of the appellants filed the aforesaid Writ Petition Civil Writ No.931 of 1966 for quashing the order dated 15th October 1965 passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings.
Those objections were rejected by the Consolidation Officer.
The appeal filed on behalf of Sham Singh was accepted by the Settlement Officer, whereas the appeals filed on behalf of Bir Singh and others were rejected.
Thereafter revision applications were filed on behalf of Bir Singh and Wazir Singh which were allowed on 15th October 1965 by the Additional Director, Consolidation, who ordered the changes in the allotment of land.
The Letters Patent Appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed saying that as the appellants had number taken any steps to bring the legal representative of aforesaid Bir Singh who was respondent to the writ petition, the writ petition had abated.
Bir Singh filed further appeals against the orders aforesaid before the Assistant Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Rohtak, which were rejected.
Pursuant to a numberification issued by the State Government under Section 14 of the East Punjab Holdings Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1948 a scheme was prepared by the authorities in respect of holdings belonging to Sham Singh, the father of the appellants, Bir Singh, father of Respondent Nos.
P. SINGH, J. This appeal has been filed against an order dated 16th March, 1981 passed by the High Court dismissing the Appeal filed on behalf of the appellants, and affirming the order of dismissal of the writ petition which had been filed on behalf of Sham Singh, the father of the appellants.
