JUDGMENT Mr. Rajive Bhalla, J.: - C.M.No.5007 of 2013 Prayer in this application is to re-call order dated 29.04.2010, dismissing the writ petition for non-prosecution and for hearing the writ petition, on merits. Notice of the application to counsel for contesting respondent no.3. Counsel for contesting respondent no.3 states that he has no objection, if the application is allowed. Heard. In view of averments in the application and the statement made by counsel for contesting respondent no.3, the application is allowed, order dated 29.04.2010 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original number and stage. Counsel for the parties pray that as in accordance with the subject roster, the writ petition has to be decided, by this Bench, arguments may be heard and the writ petition, may be decided. We accept the request made by counsel for the parties and take up the writ petition for hearing. Civil Writ Petition No.9511 of 1990 The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing order dated 17.04.1990, passed by the Additional Director Consolidation, Haryana, Rohtak. 2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that paragraph 7 of the Draft Scheme of Consolidation read along with Resolution No.50, reveals that the land, in dispute, was partitioned amongst Gopal, father of the petitioners and Balbir Singh, brother of respondent no.3, and other co-sharers, pursuant to statements made by Gopal and Balbir Singh and land was, accordingly, allotted during re-partition. Balbir Singh, brother of respondent no.3, filed objections under Section 21(2) of the East Punjab Holdings(Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Consolidation Act’). The objections were rejected by the Consolidation Officer, on 08.11.1983. Balbir Singh filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer, which was allowed on 12.10.1988 and the matter was remanded to the Consolidation Officer, who considered the objections and once again held that as land has been allotted in accordance with paragraph 7 of the draft scheme as modified by resolution no.50, there is no error in the allotment of land. Balbir Singh filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer, which was allowed on 12.10.1988 and the matter was remanded to the Consolidation Officer, who considered the objections and once again held that as land has been allotted in accordance with paragraph 7 of the draft scheme as modified by resolution no.50, there is no error in the allotment of land. Respondent no.3, filed a petition under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act, which was allowed by the Additional Director Consolidation, by holding that the Consolidation Officer has misconstrued the order of remand passed by the Settlement Officer and as Balbir Singh could not give consent on behalf of his other co-sharers, the Consolidation Officer shall examine the matter afresh and allot land in accordance with rights of parties. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is illegal, null and void, as resolution no.50 was passed after agreement between Gopal, father of the petitioners, and Balbir Singh, brother of respondent no.3. The Additional Director Consolidation, ignored the Full Bench judgment in Biru and another v. Suraj Bhan and others, 1983 P.L.J., 216, holding that during consolidation proceedings, consent given by one or more co-sharers on behalf of others is sufficient, except if the consent has been obtained by fraud or collusion. It is further submitted that the Additional Director Consolidation has wrongly held that the Consolidation Officer has misconstrued the order passed by the Settlement Officer. The Consolidation Officer has examined the case in accordance with paragraph 7 and resolution no.50. It is further submitted that initially the appeals were filed by Balbir Singh, but after Balbir Singh was unsuccessful, the petition under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act was filed by his brother, respondent no.3. 3. Counsel for respondent no.3 submits that the impugned order is legal and valid as it does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or of law. The land, in dispute, was in possession of respondent no.3 and other co-sharers as recorded in khasra girdwari of Rabi, 1982 and was, therefore, to be allotted to the private respondent, but has instead been allotted to the petitioners. The consent by Balbir Singh, recorded in resolution no.50 does not bind the answering respondent and the Full Bench judgment does not apply to the case, in hand. 4. We have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order as well as the paper book. 5. The consent by Balbir Singh, recorded in resolution no.50 does not bind the answering respondent and the Full Bench judgment does not apply to the case, in hand. 4. We have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order as well as the paper book. 5. The dispute, in the present case, is whether the Additional Director Consolidation has committed an error in setting aside order passed by the Consolidation Officer by holding that there is an error in allotment of “Kuras” (parcel of land to the parties). A due consideration of the facts reveals that paragraph 7 of the scheme required consolidation authorities to allot major portion of land by reference to girdawari of Rabi, 1982. Gopal, father of the petitioners and Balbir Singh, brother of respondent no.3, representing his co-sharers, agreed vide resolution appearing at Page no.134 of register no.1, in the following terms:- “In general meeting(izlaas aam) all members of Consolidation Committee and general right holders and other interested persons were called and present and with the consent of joint land owners the joint khata was partitioned as under............” 6. The major portions were allotted in accordance with the above resolution, after partition of the joint khata. It would be appropriate to point out and as admitted that Balbir Singh, who gave consent as a co-sharer is the brother of respondent no.3. The Additional Director Consolidation, has set aside these orders, primarily, on the ground that consent of Balbir Singh as a co-sharer does not bind other co-sharers. The question whether consent of a co-sharer binds another co-sharer, particularly, in consolidation proceedings, came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in Biru and another v. Suraj Bhan and others, 1983 (supra) and after considering the rights of co sharers during consolidation proceedings, it was held that if hearing is afforded to one or more of the co-sharers, it is adequate hearing except if the hearing is vitiated by fraud/collusion. A relevant extract from the judgment reads as follows:- 12. From the aforesaid larger conspectus of the wide ranging jurisprudential principle that where there is identity and jointness of interest then any one of such persons might well represent the others and also bind them, it seems manifest that this principle would be euqally, if not more strongly, attracted in the proceedings under the Consolidation Act as well. From the aforesaid larger conspectus of the wide ranging jurisprudential principle that where there is identity and jointness of interest then any one of such persons might well represent the others and also bind them, it seems manifest that this principle would be euqally, if not more strongly, attracted in the proceedings under the Consolidation Act as well. As has been noticed earlier, this statute is a piece of progressive agrarian legislation with some urgency of object to be achieved and not as has been picturesquely said a mere slow motion picture. In view of the fact that consolidation proceedings all over the State may affect millions of rightholders of land and because of interminable litigation and clash of interest, it would be beyond the realm of practicability to demand the impleading of each individual or joint cosharer to every proceedings. Even more doctrinaire may be the demand of not only impleading each such co-sharer but effectively serving each of them and securing their representation. An overly meticulous approach to the problem imbued with overly legal formalism may ultimately nullify or frustrate the laudable objects of the statute itself. It was pointed out on behalf of the respondents that if a hypertechnical view was to be taken then the absence of either impleading one of the co-sharers or the inadvertent failure of service of any one of them may render the whole action beyond the provisions of the Act. Once that is so, such an action may well attract the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts, which with their tardy process would hamstring the very purpose of expeditious compulsory consolidation of wasteful and uneconomic landholdings. Similarly, it was rightly pointed out that not one but most of the proceedings under the Act involved a chain reaction affecting a large number of joint rightholders and to insist upon the impleading and service of each one of the co-sharers would in effect be creating in passable road-blocks in the achievement of the central purpose and object of the legislation. A plausible an particular example given was that of the alignment of village paths which in the larger conspectus may involve not only all the rightholders of a village estate but even all the residents therein. A plausible an particular example given was that of the alignment of village paths which in the larger conspectus may involve not only all the rightholders of a village estate but even all the residents therein. To insist that each one of the joint or individual rightholders must for such a purpose be both impleaded and served would be a counsel of perfection impossible of practical achievement. I am, therefore, of the view that the sound principle of effective representation by a co-sharer where his interests are common and identical with others, is doubly attracted and applicable to proceedings under the Consolidation Act. 13. From the above, it inevitably follows that it is neither within the letter nor spirit of sections 21 and 42 of the Act that every co-sharer must be mandatorily impleaded in proceedings thereunder. Indeed, as has been highlighted earlier, the Act itself does not enjoin any such legal formality. However, this should not preclude a petitioner in a particular case to pin-point a rightholder who is to be adversely affected and therefore, impleading him as a party in the application. On practical considerations this would in fact be apt but a failure to do so does not in any way affect the validity or the legality of the proceedings. By virtue of the proviso to section 42 of the Act and the larger principle of affording an opportunity to show cause to all persons adversely affected in quasi-judicial proceedings it is always necessary to afford them a hearing when action against them is envisaged. In the consolidation proceedings, therefore, in cases of cosharers where their interests are joint and identical then an effective hearing given to one would, in the eye of law, be a hearing given to all, which in law would suffice. This salutary principle is, of course, subject to the rule that where such a hearing is vitiated by fraud or collusion or the absence of any fair and real trial of the issue, then such a hearing would not be binding upon the other co-sharers.” 7. Admittedly, Balbir Singh, one of the co-sharers, was afforded a hearing and gave his consent for and on behalf of the entire body of co-sharers and signed resolution No.50 at page 134, agreeing to partition the joint khewat. Admittedly, Balbir Singh, one of the co-sharers, was afforded a hearing and gave his consent for and on behalf of the entire body of co-sharers and signed resolution No.50 at page 134, agreeing to partition the joint khewat. The statement made by Balbir Singh binds all his co-sharers as it was not challenged by Balbir Singh or respondent no.3, by denying that hearing was not granted or that consent was obtained by fraud. The petition under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act, was filed by respondent no.3, after Balbir had exhausted his remedies. It would be appropriate to point out that in proceedings initiated by Balbir, he did not raise a plea that he was not authorised, on behalf of his other co-sharers, to give consent or that his consent was obtained by fraud or collusion. 8. In view of these facts and the ratio of law laid down by the Full Bench in Biru and another v. Suraj Bhan and others (supra), we have no hesitation in holding that consent by Balbir, to the partition of the joint khewat, would bind the entire body of co-sharers and the plea that consent of each co-sharer was not taken, is insufficient to hold that orders passed by the Consolidation Officer etc. are in any manner illegal or void. The Director Consolidation ignored the Full Bench judgment in Biru and another v. Suraj Bhan and others (supra), and, therefore, committed an error of jurisdiction rendering the impugned order null and void. 9. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed and impugned order dated 17.04.1990, is set aside. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————