MAHABIR PARSHAD Vs. CHHAJU AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a letters patent appeal filed by Mahabir Parshad son of Kusla Ram, resident of Gurgaon, against the judgment dated November 16. 1972, of a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition of Chhaju and others was accepted and the impugned order dated December 20, 1967 of the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana was quashed.

(2.) The facts of this case are that the consolidation of holdings took place in the village of the parties in the year 1961 and Chhaju and others, respondents were allotted land measuring 16 kanals 4 marlas in rectangle No. 27/7/2(2K -16M) and rectangle No. 21/3 (8K -9M). 21/4/1 (5K -8M) as Jumla Mushtraka Malkan Mahabir Parshad appellant was alleged to be present in the village during the period the consolidation proceedings took place in the village but he did not file any objections under S. 21 (1) of the East Punjab Holding (Consolidation and prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1941 (hereinafter called the Act). He also did not file any appears under Sec. 21 (3) or 21 (4) of the Act, The appellant also did not proved in the matter for about 5 1/2 years and he submitted an application under Sec. 42 of the Act on February 14. 1967, to the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana and in that petition, Chhaju, Ishwar, Panna Lal, Bala Ram and Durga Lambarda were not impleaded as party. This application of Mahabir Parshad appellant was allowed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana by his impugned order dated December 20, 1967. Chhaju, Ishwar and others filed Civil Writ No. 619 of 1969 to quash this order of the Additional Director as being illegal, void and mala -fide as it was passed without jurisdiction. This petition was contested by Mahabir Parshad appellant. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that the Additional Director had exercised jurisdiction not vested in him by entertaining a time -barred petition without first condoling the delay in filing that petition. This contention (sic) with the learned Single Judge and the writ petition was accepted and the impugned order was quashes. Feeling dissatisfied, Mahabir Parshad filed this appeal under clause X of the Letters Patent.

(3.) The impugned order dated December 20, 1967, of the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, whose copy is attached as Annexure 'B' to the Writ petition reads as follows : - -