NATHA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment dated 23rd August, 1972, of a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition filed by Natha Singh, Lal Singh and Karnail Singh appellants was dismissed with costs.

(2.) The facts of this case are that the appellants who are residents of village Malout, Tehsil Muktsar, District Ferozepore, (now Faridkot) filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of The Constitution of India, calling in question the legality and propriety of the order dated 16th July, 1966, of the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Ferezepore, whereby he confirmed the allotment of the common grave-yard bearing Khasra No. 1051 of their village to Kheta Singh, respondent No. 5. This Khasra No. 1051 was allotted to Kheta Singh by the Consolidation Officer by his order dated 18th March, 1965, copy Annexure 'F' to the writ petition. Some proprietors of this village felt aggrieved against this order and they filed an application under Section 42 of the fast Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against this order and it was dismissed by The Additional Director, by his order dated l6th July, 1966, on merits as well as on the ground that the same was barred by limitation. Kheta Singh, respondent No. 5, filed his return in the form of affidavit wherein be denied the allegations made in the writ petition. Mr. H.L. Sarin, learned counsel for Kheta Singh, respondent No. 5, contended before the learned Single Judge, that it is not necessary for the Court to go into the merits of this case as the Additional Director also dismissed the application on the ground that it was barred by limitation and that this finding of the Additional Director is not open to question in this Court. I his contention prevailed and was accepted by the learned Single Judge and be dismissed the writ petition with costs. Feeling aggrieved, Natha Singh and others filed this letters patent appeal against this judgment.

(3.) The appellants made an application under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code for summoning the file of the Additional Director. Consolidation of Holdings, confirming the allotment of the land, in dispute in favour of Kheta Singh, respondent No. 5, alleging that the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the application under Section 42 of the Act was beyond limitation but the facts in the file of the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, are to the contrary. By order dated 5th December, 1973, the aforesaid file was ordered to be summoned.