KHUSHI RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Khushi Ram petitioner (now deceased and represented by his legal representatives) and his brother Raghu Nath respondent owned agricultural land jointly in village Panchhat, Tehsil Phagwara, District Kapurthala, where the consolidation of holdings took place in 1973-74. The proceedings under Section 21(1) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1949, (hereafter the Act) were taken on March 30, 1974. The consolidation authorities kept the holdings of the two brothers joint. On August 18, 1975, Raghu Nath respondent filed a petition under Section 42 of the Act praying that his joint holding with his brother may be partitioned. The petitioner was issued a notice and he put in appearance. He stated that he had no objection in case the demand of the respondent for separation of his share is accepted. In view of the statement of Khushi Ram petitioner that he had no objection for partitioning the joint holding, the Additional Director Consolidation vide order dated April 16, 1976, (P. 1) condoned the delay in filing the petition under Section 42 of the Act. The petitioner further stated before the Additional Director that he had no objection if the Kurras of the parties after separating the share of Raghu Nath respondent were so formed that they retained their existing possessions. Raghu Nath respondent accepted the suggestion of the petitioner. The Additional Director vide order dated April 16, 1976, (P. 1) consequently partitioned the joint holding of the two brothers in terms of the agreed proposal made by them. The petitioner has assailed the order P. 1 in the present writ.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petition filed by Raghu Nath respondent under Section 42 of the Act was time-barred and the Additional Director did not give any valid reason for condoning the delay in filing the same. It shall, therefore, be assumed that the delay has not been properly condoned and the impugned order passed by the Additional Director is ultra vires. The contention is without merit. The petitioner stated before the Additional Director that he had no objection if the demand of his brother Raghu Nath respondent for partition of the joint holding is accepted. It clearly means that the petitioner conceded that the delay in filing the petition under Section 42 of the Act may be condoned. The Additional Director condoned the delay in filing the petition under Section 42 of the Act in view of the statement of the petitioner that he had no objection if the joint holding is partitioned. The petitioner having made a concessional statement before the Additional Director cannot justifiably assail the impugned order on the ground that no valid reason has been given for condoning the delay in filing the petition under Section 42 of the Act.

(3.) The petitioner and Raghu Nath respondent had made a joint proposal for effecting the partition of the joint holding. The partition was effected by the Additional Director in terms of the joint proposal. This part of the order can also be not justifiably assailed by the petitioner in the present writ proceedings.