DHAN SINGH Vs. ADDL DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Harnam Singh filed an application under Section 42 of the Act and claimed relief regarding a path and a water-course. This application was allowed by the Additional Director on 9th January, 1968. He provided a path and water-course to Harnam Singh through the land of Dhan Singh, petitioner. Dissatisfied with this order, Dhan Singh has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) It has been argued by Mr. Anand Swaroop, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the application filed by Harnam Singh before the Additional Director was hopelessly time barred. Even the Additional Director had accepted this fact and had himself observed that the application was time barred. However, he has granted relief to Harnam Singh purporting to act suo motu. It is contended by the learned counsel that the Additional Director took cognizance of the case only on the application filed by Harnam Singh. He did not come to know about the facts of this case from any other source. He proceeded to decide this application. In fact in the opening part of the judgment, it is mentioned that once of the pleas raised by Harnam Singh is liable to be rejected because his petition is time barred. However, he has allowed two other prayers made by Harnam Singh in the later portion of the judgment. The Additional Director could not decide the application of Harnam Singh piecemeal. Either whole of the petition was time barred or it was within time. It has also been argued that when an authority takes cognizance of a case before it on the application by a party, in that case, it cannot be said that the decision had been made suo motu.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Naginder Singh, the learned counsel appearing for Harnam Singh, has contended that the decision has not been given on the application of Harnam Singh. The Additional Director came to know about the injustice done to Harnam Singh and he in his discretion thought it fit to grant relief to him. He has also contended that even while taking cognizance on an application of a party, the Additional Director can decide the matter suo motu. His powers are not in any way circumscribed by the rule of limitation. They are only applicable to a party. A litigant cannot insist for the adjudication of his rights beyond the period of limitation prescribed by the statute, but there is no bar on an authority to decide the matter itself, even if the matter comes before it at the instance of the party to the litigation. In support of this contention, he has relied on a recent judgment of Tewatia, J. in Puran Chand and others v. Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, 1979 PunLJ 188, wherein it has been held :