RAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition of Ran Singh directed against the order of the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, passed on 29th of January, 1965, declining his prayer for fitting him in his majority area in Khasra No. 2162.

(2.) THE consolidation operations in village Rohera of Kaithal tehsil have been going on since 1960 and the scheme as framed on 24th of February, 1960 was confirmed on 9th of April, 1960. The petitioner had asserted that the valuation of 17,14 Bighas in Khasra No. 2162 had been fixed in the scheme at the rate of 12 annas and an area of about 4 Bighas subsequently came to be valued at 4 annas, the resultant effect being that he was deprived of his right to be fitted in Kbasra No. 2162. The petitioner complained about the manipulation which had been made in the valuation before the Consolidation officer who declined to interfere.

(3.) TO deal with the question of limitation first. Under rule 18 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, a petition under section 42 has to be made within six months "of the date of the order against which it is filed '. Now, the order of the Assistant Director who had dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and had advised him to resort to remedy under section 42 was passed on 20th of February, 1962. The application under section 42 was made on 8th of August, 1962 and this would be clearly within six months from the date of the Assistant Director's order Prima facie, it appears to me that no question of limitation arose and none was raised when the petition came for disposal before the Additional Director in the first instance on 27th of June, 1963. It has been settled by Bench decisions of this Court that if the question of limitation is not raised and the Additional Director is not made aware of it, the question cannot be agitated again. Mr. Jaspal Singh was influenced by the earlier report which had been made by the Settlement Officer in 1959 in which it was said that only 13 14 Bighas was of 12 annas value. This observation of the Settlement Officer was before the Additional Director when he detected mischief in the alteration that had been made in the scheme itself. Mr. Jaspal Singh has not dealt with the fresh valuation which had been recommended in the report Exhibit P.B. of 2nd of September, 1964. Under section 42 of the Act, it is open to the State Government to pass any order at any time for the purpose of satisfying itself "as to the legality or propriety of any order passed, scheme prepared or confirmed or repartition made by any officer. " It seems plain that the question of valuation embodied in the scheme can be suitably revised in an order made by the Additional Director as a representative of the State Government under section 42 of the Act. It seems that the Additional Director Mr. Jaspal Singh has wholly misdirected himself and the order passed by him on 29 of January, 1955, has therefore, to be quashed.