HARCHARAN SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 10th of March, 1983, whereby the writ petition challenging the order of Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Chandigarh dated 23rd of April, 1975, Annexure P-7, was dismissed.

(2.) The proceedings for the consolidation of holdings in village Rampur Chana, Tehsil Malerkotla took place in 1953. In 1971, Balu Ram, father of the writ-petitioner, approached the Consolidation Officer alleging that he had been allotted abadi land and Ruri, vide resolution No. 101 on August 19, 1953, but the same had not been entered in his name in the record. The Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 19th of July, 1971, Annexure P-3, ordered that Killa No. 654/62 (0-1 Biswas) be taken out of the ownership of the Nagar Panchayat and be entered in the name of Balu Ram. This order was passed under Section 43-A of the East Punjab Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation), Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The Gram Panchayat feeling aggrieved by the order, Annexure P-3, assailed the same in a petition under Section 42 of the Act, which was allowed vide order dated 22.3.1973, Annexure P-5. It was observed in the said order that Balu Ram, may, however, file a petition under Section 42 of the Act in relation to the reliefthat he claimed from the Consolidation Officer, but he should explain the delay for not filing it up to the time he gave an application under Section 43-A of the Act. Balu Ram then filed a petition under Section 42 of the Act in which he sought the following two reliefs :-

(3.) The Additional Director, vide order dated 23rd of April, 1975, Annexure P-7, dismissed this petition as time barred after recording a finding that no case for condonation of delay in filing the petitioner has been made out. The petitioners assailed the said order in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge took the view that it was within the competency of the Additional Director to condone the delay. Since he did not condone the delay, there was no justification to issue a direction to the Additional Director in writ jurisdiction for condoning the delay.