RULIA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point involved in this case is whether the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, has any jurisdiction to review his previous order given on merits, on the ground that a fraud was committed by the successful petitioner by changing the date in the order under revision and thus indicating that the petition before the Additional Director was within time.

(2.) The original petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed by Sewa Singh and others. In the certified copy of the order of the Assistant Director, which was the order under revision, the date of the completion and delivery of the copy was said to be 26th February, 1965, but before placing the copy on the record alognwith the petition the date was changed to 26th April, 1965, so as to bring the petition within limitation. In view of this Rulia Singh did not and could not raise an objection of bar of limitation. The matter was consequently, examined by the Additional Director on merits and finding that the petitioners, Sewa Singh and others, deserved some relief, altered the order of the Assistant Collector to some extent. This order was passed on 25th March, 1966.

(3.) Thereafter, a review application was filed by Rulia Singh before a successor of the Additional Director suggesting that in the earlier case there has been tampering with the date of completion of the copy of the order. The learned Additional Director went into the question, whether the date has been altered, as urged, and he gave a finding to the following effect :-