BACHNA Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed by Bachna challenging the legality of the order dated 13.9.1967 passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, respondent No. 1.

(2.) According to the allegations of the petitioner, he and Santa and three others, respondents 2 to 5, were right-holders of village Kulrian, district Bhantinda. Consolidation operations started in their village on the basis of a scheme which was published on 4th of July, 1963 add confirmed on 16.8.1963. Repartition under Section 21(1) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. (hereinafter called the Act) was published on 30th of September, 1963 and on the same day it was agreed to by all the right-holders of the village including respondents 2 and 3. After about 1-1/2 years, respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 42 of the Act before respondent No. 1. His prayer was that his plot had been bisected by a path and that he be given his Kurrah on one side of it. The Additional Director held that on the ground of percentage, respondent No. 2 should have been given his Kurrah on one side of the path. The petitioner had no valid objection to the proposed change. As regards the delay in filing the petition under Section 42, the Additional Director observed that respondent No. 2 had explained it by saying that soon after the re-partition, there was a writ petition filed in this Court and this Court then issued orders staying transfer of possessions and respondent No. 2, therefore, could not file an application under Section 42 within the prescribed time. In view of this explanation the delay was condoned by the Additional Director. He, therefore, accepted the application under Section 42 on 13.9.1967. That led to the filing of the present writ petition on 22.5.1968.

(3.) In the return filed by respondents 2 to 4, a preliminary objection was taken that the writ petition was very much delayed and deserved to be rejected on that ground alone, as no reasons had been stated for the delay in filing the same. On merits, it was stated that respondents 2 to 4 were neither informed about the repartition nor were possessions transferred at that time. The respondents never agreed to the said re-partition, with which they were dissatisfied. They never knew that they had been allotted land on two sides of the road against the scheme and this was to their great disadvantage. When they came to know about it, they filed the application under Section 42 of the Act. The impugned order passed by the Additional Director was quite in accordance with the scheme. The respondents had a higher percentage and, therefore, they were put on one side of the road and the petitioner had suffered no loss thereby.