SAVITRI DEVI Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners challenge the orders dated April 28, 1997 and February 28, 2000, passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, respectively. By the first order, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P5, the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, had accepted an application under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, filed by respondent No. 4. He had after consideration of the matter, directed the Consolidation Officer to examine the case and to see if the fields of respondent No. 4 had been "carved according to Scheme. If not, then necessary changes be made after hearing all the concerned parties." On remand the Consolidation Officer had passed an order dated May 21, 1998. By this order the claim of respondent No. 4 was rejected. He filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer. Vide order dated February 28, 2000 the Settlement Officer found that the Consolidation Officer had not examined the matter according to the directions given by the Additional Director in his order of April 28, 1997. He further noticed that "the C.O. in his order dated 21.5.98 has spoken of his spot visit, but he has based his order on the statement of the respondents only vide which the area has been under their possession. He has not expressed his observation as to the possession. He has not recorded any statements nor has he referred to the depositions made by other villagers regarding possession." On this basis he concluded that "it was not proper for the C.O. to base his observation on the statement of the respondents only." He further found "force in the argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant (now respondent No. 4) that the remarks made by the C.O. regarding 'Rasta' and 'Reservation' of the area are not in consonance with the Scheme." Thus, he remitted the matter to the Consolidation Officer "to decide it afresh in the light of the directions of the Addl. Director C/H Punjab dated 28.4.97 and strictly as per provisions of law."

(2.) THE petitioners pray that the order dated April 28, 1997 passed by the Additional Director, by which he had forwarded the case to the Consolidation Officer, and the order dated February 28, 2000 passed by the Settlement Officer, be quashed.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the Additional Director had passed the order on a petition submitted by respondent No. 4 as far back as April 28, 1997. The petitioners had not raised their little finger against this order till August 30, 2000, when they approached this Court through the present writ petition. There was, thus, a lapse of four years and four months. Despite being asked, learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to give any explanation for the failure of the petitioners to challenge the order passed by the Additional Director on April 28, 1997. The petition deserves to be dismissed on the short ground of delay.