(1.) Through this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the validity of the order of the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jullundur dated 27.9.1966 (Annexure 'B' to the writ petition), on the ground that the petitioners, who are residents of village Jakhopur, Tehsil Nakodar, District Jullundur, are actually residing at Rohtak, where they are carrying on some business, except Gurdial Singh, who is residing at Makhu in the district of Ferozepore, and that the said order had been passed by respondent No. 1 (The Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jullundur) behind their back without affording them an opportunity to show cause or to raise objections to the claim made by respondents 2 to 6 before respondent No. 1. It is also alleged by them that the application under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act (East Punjab Act 50 of 1948), hereinafter referred to as the Act, was barred by time and that they have been deprived of some portion of their land without paying any compensation. No return has been filed on behalf of either official or non-official respondents, which means that the allegations made in the writ petition stand unrebutted. However, that apart, even from the impugned order of respondent No. 1, it is clear that the application was barred by limitation, but he condoned the delay on the ground that it was necessary to provide a path to the common well which justified even a suo motu action under Section 42 of the Act. It is also clear from the impugned order that after taking out land for the path from the land of the petitioners, some deficiency will be caused in their holdings, but the said deficiency was considered negligible and ignorable under the provisions of the scheme and it is perhaps for this reason that no provisions for compensation was made in the said order.
(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners has urged that a landowner is entitled to receive as a result of repartition land of the same value which he puts in the common pool at the commencement of the consolidation operations in an estate and the only deductions that can be made are for the authorised common purposes of the village as envisaged under Section 18 of the Act. The learned Counsel states that it is for this reason that Section 15 of the Act provides for the payment of compensation in case a landowner has been allotted a holding of less market value than that he is entitled to under the Act. In this connection, the learned Counsel has referred me to a Supreme Court decision reported in State of Punjab and another v. Suraj Parkash Kapur etc., 1963 AIR(SC) 507wherein it has been observed -
(3.) So far as the question of limitation is concerned, there is no merit in the contention urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, because the Director of Consolidation of Holdings can take suo motu action at any time and in the present case the Additional Director (respondent No. 1) has taken action in the exercise of his suo motu powers under Section 42 of the Act, which he can exercise even beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the rules.