HARCHARAN SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The proceedings for the consolidation of holdings in village Rampur Chhanna, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur, took place in 1953. In 1971, Balu Ram, father of the petitioners, 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 July 19, 1971, (P.3) ordered that Killa No. 654/62 (O.11 Biswas) be taken out of the ownership of the Nagar Panchayat and be entered in this name of Balu Ram. This order was passed under Section 43-A of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act (hereinafter the Act). The Gram Panchayat feeling aggrieved by the order P. 3 assailed the same in a petition under Section 42 of the Act which was allowed vide order dated March 22, 1973 (P.5). It was observed in the order of Additional Director P.5 that Balu Ram may, however, file a petition under Section 42 of the Act in relation to the relief that he claimed from the Consolidation Officer but he should explain the delay for not filing it upto 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 :-

(2.) The Additional Director vide order dated April 23, 1975 (P.7), dismissed this petition as time barred after recording a finding that no case for condonation of delay in filing the petition has been made out. Tthe petitioner has assailed the order P.7 in the present writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that in the petition filed by their father Balu Ram under section 42 of the Act, sufficient cause had been shown for the condonation of delay in filing the petition and the Additional Director wrongly held that no case for condonation of delay had been made out. the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground. I am not impressed by this contention. It was within the competency of the Additional Director to condone or refuse to condone that delay in filing the petitioner. The Additional Director to condone or refuse to condone the delay in filing the petitioner. The Additional Director did apply his mind. He has held that the repartition under section 21(1) was published on October 1, 1953, and the aggrieved party could agitate under sections 21(2), 21(3), 21(4), 42 etc. No proceedings were taken under any of the provisions from 1953 to 1971. The view taken by the Additional Director is neither illegal nor perverse to justify interference in writ proceedings.