in strict compliance with the provisions of the Act, but pursuant to administrative directions given to Stat~ of Punjab v. the Consolidation Officer by the State Government. Suraj Patkash Broadly stated, under the said directions the Consoli- Kapur, etG. dation Officer was directed to take into consideration, for the purpose of consolidation, the number of acres Subba Rao j. held by the evacuee and not the actual valuation at site of the land allotted to him. The objections filed by the respondents were rejected by the Consolidation Officer. By an order dated August 6, 1958, the Settlement Commissioner confirmed the scheme propounded by the Consolidation Officer. Meanwhile, the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (44 of.1954) became la.w; it came into force on October 9, 1954, i.e., after the Estate had been notified for consolidation of holdings. On March 24, 1955, the Central Government issued a notification under s. 12 of the Displaced Persons Act ( 44 of 1954) acquiring all the evam.1ee properties to which that Act applied. This notification was issued before the scheme of consolidation was confirmed by the Settlement Commissioner. On February 23, 1956, the Central Government issued a sanad conferring proprietary rights on the respondents in respect of the lands allotted to them in 1950. This sanad was issued after the order of the Settlement Commissioner confirming the scheme of consolidation. On N ovembcr 9, 1955, i.e., before the said sanad was issued to them, the respondents filed a petition in the High Court of Punjab under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of an appropriate writ to quash the said scheme of consolidation. The High Court by its final order dated E'ebruary l, 1957, allowed the said objection and issued a direction to the Consolidation Officer to proceed wHh the matter before him in accordance with law.
