THAKAR SINGH Vs. DHARAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners purchased 12 Kanals 19 Marlas of land from respondent 9 for a sum of Rs. 1000/- by registered deed dated 21st February, 1961. The land was 1/8th share in Rectangle No. 66, Killa Nos. 13/2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13/1, Rectangle No. 128, Killa Nos. 16/3, 17/1, 18/2, 19/1, 22/2, 23, 24, 25/1 and Rectangle No. 137, Killa Nos. 3, 4, 5/1, 7 and 8 in village Badian, tehsil Muktsar, district Ferozepur. Respondents 10 and 11 sold their 1/8th share each in the abovesaid field numbers to Mangal Singh son of Dula Singh and Piare Singh son of Natha Singh, residents of village Badian, after the petitioners had purchased the land mentioned in para 1 from respondent 9. As a result of this sale by respondents 10 and 11, Mangal Singh and Piare Singh became owners of 1/4th share in the above-mentioned field numbers. In respect of this sale the petitioners brought a suit for pre-emption and obtained a decree against Mangal Singh and Piare Singh and thus became owners of the entire land sold by respondents 9, 10 and 11 mentioned above and thus became co-sharers to the extent of 3/8th share in the fields mentioned above.

(2.) The consolidation proceedings in the village started in the year 1960 and repartition of the holdings under Section 21(1) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act (hereinafter called the Act) took place in June, 1960. Chanan Ram, since deceased, father of respondents 3, 4 and 5, filed objections under Section 21(2) of the Act which were accepted on 13th September, 1960 as a result of which Dharam Singh respondent 1 was affected. Chanan Ram deceased claimed no relief against the respondents 9, 10 and 11 whose land had been purchased by the petitioners. Dharam Singh filed an appeal under Section 21(3) of the Act against the orders of the Consolidation Officer which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer on 30th December, 1960. Dharam Singh filed an appeal under Section 21(4) of the Act which was rejected by the Assistant Director, Consolidation of Holdings, as barred by time, vide order dated 30th August, 1961, a copy of which has been filed an Annexure 'C' to the writ petition. The learned Assistant Director observed that the appeal had been filed after the expiry of 69 days when it could be filed only within 60 days. Five days had been spent in obtaining a certified copy of the order and even if that period was excluded, the appeal was still barred by time. Against the order of the Assistant Director, Dharam Singh filed an application under Section 42 of the Act which was rejected on 4th June, 1964, by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, on the ground that in view of the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Roop Chand V. The State of Punjab and another, 1963 65 PunLR 576, the application under Section 42 was not maintainable. Dharam Singh again filed a petition under Section 42 of the Act which was accepted on 7th July, 1964 by the same Additional Director, Dewan Karta Krishan, who had earlier dismissed the application under Section 42 of the Act on 4th June, 1964. The learned Additional Director noted that the application was time-barred but waived the limitation without giving any reasons. He granted the relief to Dharam Singh observing that -

(3.) The writ petition has been contested by Dharam Singh respondent alone.