UJALA Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are right-holders in village Butana Khetlan, Tehsil Gohana, District Rohtak, and owned a joint Khewat before the consolidation operations in the village which took place in 1964. The Consolidation Officer decided the objections under Section 21(2) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act), on the 17th of July, 1964. The allotment of the area made to the petitioners and respondent No. 3 were in accordance with the scheme. Respondent No. 3 Hawa Singh, did not file any appeal under Section 21(3) or 21(4) of the Act against the order of the Consolidation Officer but filed an application under Section 42 of the Act on the 30th of March, 1965, before the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated the 17th July, 1964. This application was accepted and killa Nos. 12, 13/1, 18/1 and 17 of Rectangle No. 38 were taken out of the Kurrahs of the petitioners and given to respondent No. 3 and killa Nos. 42/1, 10/2, 11/1 and 41/1 were taken away from respondent No. 3 and given to the petitioners. The petitioners allege that after the allotment to them of killa Nos. 12, 13/1, 18/1 and 17, they developed and improved them at a cost of Rs. 2200/- by getting the pits filled up and getting the land levelled. The petitioners filed the present writ petition on the 30th of October, 1966, praying for the quashing of the orders dated the 28th of September, 1966, of the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Rohtak, on the following grounds :-

(2.) Return has been filed only on behalf of respondent No. 3 in which it has been stated that the point of limitation was not raised before the Additional Director and, therefore, cannot be raised in this Court for the first time, and secondly that the Additional Director had the jurisdiction to pass the orders and the petitioners, who were present before the Additional Director, did not object to the order then. It is, therefore, submitted by the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 that the petition should be dismissed.

(3.) Operative part of the impugned order is as under :-