PURAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JIWAN Singh and others filed a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings dated 27-7-1967, a copy of which was filed as Annexure 'a' to the writ petition. Written statements were filed on behalf of Puran Singh and Shankar 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, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act ). had been made beyond the period of 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. In coming to that conclusion, the learned Judge relied on Division Bench judgment of this court in Sewa Singh v. State of Punjab, ILR (1967)2 Punj and Har 89, 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.) THIS appeal was earlier heard by us and accepted on October 19, 1970, on the ground that rule 18 of the Rules was ultra vires section 42 of the Act with the result that the application under section 42 could be made at any time and could not be dismissed on the ground of limitation as had been held by the learned Single Judge. That judgment has since been reported as Puran Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1971 Cur LJ 30.

(3.) AN application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court (S. C. A. 16 of 1971) was then filed and in that application it was pointed out that Section 46 (2) (ff) of the Act, which had not been brought to our notice at the hearing of the appeal, authorised the State Government to frame a rule providing the period of limitation for filing applications under section 42 of the Act. At the hearing of that application, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the State of Punjab that the appeal might be reheard. The learned counsel for the respondents to that application had no objection to that course being adopted. Accordingly by our order dated April 28, 1972 we set aside our judgment delivered on October 19, 1970 and directed that this appeal may be set down for hearing on May 19, 1972. Due to certain reasons, the appeal could not be heard till today.