MAGHA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Magha Singh seeks the aid of this Court in certiorari proceedings to quash the orders of the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings passed on 16th March, 1964.

(2.) The petitioner Magha Singh and Phuman Singh etc. had mutually agreed to an exchange of land in 1939. The parcel of land which the petitioner was to part with has been mentioned in Mutation No. 983 while the area of 8 Bighas and 16 Biswas which Magha Singh was to receive from the other party is mentioned in Mutation No. 984 of 17th September, 1939. It so happened that Magha Singh remained in possession of both the areas which he had to receive under the exchange as also the area which he had to part with. The consolidation proceedings terminated sometime in 1959 and it is mentioned in the impugned order itself that "proceeding under section 21(1) were done on 31st March, 1959". The petition by Phuman Singh was presented under section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act before the Additional Director on 15th June, 1961. It is not disputed that under the relevant statutory provision the petition had to be made within a period of six months. That the petition was prima facie barred by time is noticed by the Additional Director himself. As stated in the impugned order "this is a time-barred petition. It has been prayed that the petitioners were owners of land in Khasra No. The Additional Director, though he knew that the petition was barred by time chose to discuss the merits of the case and reached the conclusion that the mistake which had been perpetrated could not be allowed to be perpetuated and proceeded to rectify the error. I do not wish to be understood for a moment to say that the Additional Director did not pass the correct order on the merit of the case. As held by a Division Bench of this Court in Sewa Singh v. State of Punjab, Civil Writ No. 1197 of 1964, decided on 4th October, 1966 (SEWA SINGH V/S STATE OF PUNJAB, 1967 2 ILR(P&H) 89) :-

(3.) In this view of the matter, the impugned order has to be quashed and the Additional Director would now proceed to dispose of the application after first determining the question whether sufficient cause exists to waive the delay which has been occasioned in presentation of the application under section 42. With this observation, the order of the Additional Director would stand quashed. The Additional Director will now proceed to deal with the matter in accordance with law. There would be no order as to, costs of this petition.