PURAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jiwan Singh and others filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, dated July 27, 1967, a copy of which was filed as Annexure 'A' to the writ petition. Written statements were filed on behalf of Puran Singh and Sankar Singh, sons of Sunder Singh, in whose favour the order had been made by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings. The writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on the ground that the application under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Act), had been made beyond the period to six months prescribed by Rule 18 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949 (hereinafter called the Rules), and that the delay in filing the application had been condoned by the learned Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, on wholly extraneous grounds. The learned Judge relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sewa Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 1967 2 ILR(P&H) 89, in support of his decision and refused to go into the merits of the case. Puran Singh has filed the present appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that Rule 18 of the Rules is ultra vires Section 42 of the Act and in support of his submission reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Delhi High Court (K.S. Hegde, C. J., now a Judge of the Supreme Court), in M.C. Rabhar and another v. Union of India and others,1968 DLT 78. The section under consideration in that case was Section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (44 of 1954), and Rule 104 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, which are as under :-

(3.) In view of the above conclusion, the judgment of learned Single Judge has to be set aside as the writ petition was accepted only on the ground that the application under Section 42 of the Act had been filed beyond the time prescribed under Rule 18 and the matter was not considered on merits. We, therefore, accept this appeal and remand the case to the learned Single Judge for decision on merits. Since the vires of Rule 18 have been settled for the first time, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.