NATHA SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Natha Singh and others have filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, calling in question the legality and propriety of the order of the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, dated the 16th July, 1966, and the connected orders confirming allotment of common graveyard in Khasra No. 1051 in village Malout, Tehsil Muktsar, District Ferozepur to Kheta Singh, respondent No. 5.

(2.) The dispute in this petition relates to Khasra No. 1051 which was allotted to Kheta Singh, respondent No. 5, by the Consolidation Officer, vide his order dated the 18th March, 1965 (copy Annexure 'F' to the petition). Various right-holders felt aggrieved from this order of the Consolidation Officer and filed petitions under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Those petitions were disposed of by the Additional Director vide the impugned order dated the 16th July, 1966 From the bare perusal of that order, I find that the Additional Director dismissed the petitions on the merits as well as on the ground that same were barred by limitation. As earlier observed, it is the legality of this order of the Additional Director which has been challenged by way of this petition.

(3.) It is contended by Mr. Nand Lal Dhingra, learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order of the Additional Director cannot legally be sustained as the same has been passed without taking into consideration the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer, the Deputy Commissioner and the Settlement Officer, copies of which have been attached with the petition as Annexures 'G', 'H', and 'J'. On the other hand, Mr. H. L. Sarin, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 contends that it is not necessary for this Court to go into this question as the Additional Director also dismissed the petitions on the ground that the same were barred by limitation and that the finding of the Additional Director in that respect is not open to question in this Court.