RATAN LAL Vs. RAM KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Letters Patent Appeal No. 442 of 1966 (Ratan Lal V. Ram Kanwar etc.) and Civil Writ No. 392 of 1967 (Ratan Lal V. The Consolidation Officer and others). The writ petition was ordered to be heard alongwith the Letters Patent Appeal by the Motion Bench.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the Letters Patent Appeal are these - Ram Kanwar, respondent No. 1, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution (Civil Writ No. 2499 of 1964) challenging the legality of the order dated the 15th July, 1964, passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings respondent No. 2. His allegations were that he, the appellant Ratan Lal, Prabhati and Shiv Charan, respondents 3 and 4, were right-holders in village Jatauli, District Gurgaon. Consolidation proceedings in their village started in 1961, when the scheme of repartition was prepared and published. No objections were raised against the said scheme and the repartition was carried out in accordance with the provisions of that scheme. The appellant did not object to the repartition under Section 21 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, hereinafter called the Act. He, however, on 13th March, 1963, made an application before the Assistant Collector, II Grade, Pataudi, that a new water channel to his plot be provided through the land of respondent No. 1. The said officer rejected the application on 3rd December, 1963. Thereafter, the appellant moved an application under Section 42 of the Act before the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, respondent No. 2. By means of the impunged order dated 15th July, 1964, respondent No. 2 ordered that a Khal Chah, one Karam wide, be given to the appellant and certain changes were, accordingly, made by him. That led to the filing of the writ petition by respondent No. 1. It came up for hearing before Shamsher Bahadur, J., who, on 25th October, 1966, allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order.

(3.) Before the learned Single Judge, it was argued by the counsel for respondent No. 1 that the application under Section 42 of the Act filed by the appellant was haplessly time-barred. No legally valid reason had been given by the Additional Director for extending the period of limitation. Consequently, his order was without jurisdiction.