KHEMAN Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has arisen in the following circumstances. After the consolidation proceedings in village Dodewala situate in Tehsil Fazilka had come to an end and repartition of land made in pursuance thereof published, Ladhu Ram respondent No. 2 and Gopi Ram, respondent No. 3, filed a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which admittedly was barred by time and which stated that respondent Nos. 2 and 3, had all along been in cultivating possession of Khasra Nos. 2, 9 to 12, 117, 122 to 124, 203 and 771/204 under Kheman petitioner who was threatening to oust them therefrom. It was asserted that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had come to know only a week earlier that "we have not been fitted as tenants though we cultivated the land prior to consolidation." It was further averred that the petition was within time for the reason that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had gained the requisite knowledge only a week earlier to the presentation of the petition.

(2.) Section 42 of the Act as amended by Punjab Act No. 27 of 1960 runs thus :-

(3.) Ground (b) has also no merit. The impugned order gives no indication at all about respondent No. 1 being conscious of the fact that the petition under Section 42 of the Act, which he disposed of, was presented to him after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed therefor in Rule 18 of the Rules framed under the Act. In contending to the contrary learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to paragraphs (e), (f), 2, 3 and 5 of the petition under Section 42 and the same are reproduced below :-