BATTAN SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has arisen in the following circumstances. In the year 1962-63 a scheme of consolidation was framed for village Laroya in Tehsil Nawanshar, District Jullundur, under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and the repartition of lands situated in the village was finalised in the year 1963 in pursuance of the scheme. On the 28th of July, 1967, respondent No. 3 filed a petition under Section 42 of the Act before the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jullundur (respondent No. 1), who, after notice thereof to and in the presence of the petitioner, directed that a path running through the land of the petitioner be provided for the use of respondent No. 3. The order of respondent No. 1 is dated the 14th of September, 1967, and is appended to the petition as Annexure 'A'. This order is challenged in the writ petition along with another passed by respondent No. 1 on the 13th of February, 1968 (Annexure 'B' to the petition), refusing to review his earlier order on the grounds of which the following have been pressed before me :-

(2.) Ground (b) is obviously based on false premises. Respondent No. 1's order dated the 14th of September, 1967 (Annexure 'A'), makes no mention at all of any question of limitation having been raised before him by the petitioner and it appears that this was so because no such objection was actually raised. Reference in this connection may be made to the petition dated the 10th of January, 1968 (Annexure 'C' to the petition), filed by the petitioner through his counsel Shri R.P. Sarin, Advocate, Nawanshahr praying for a review of respondent No. 1's order dated the 14th of September, 1967. That petition (Annexure 'C') makes no mention at all of any plea of limitation having been raised before respondent No. 1 at the time the order sought to be reviewed was made. Had the plea been factually correct, there is no reason at all why it should not have been included in the grounds for review of that order. The plea is, therefore, held to be false in accordance with the case set up by respondent No. 3, who is the contesting respondent.

(3.) The question of limitation not having been raised by the petitioner before respondent No. 1, he cannot be allowed to raise it now, nor can it be said that respondent No. 1 acted without jurisdiction in entertaining a time barred petition when the question of limitation was not raised before him. See in this connection Bhagat Singh V. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jullundur and others,1966 PunLR 496. Thambu and others V. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Hissar, 1968 1 ILR(P&H) 669. Additional Director (I) Consolidation of Holdings and another V. Raghwant Singh and others, 1970 PunLJ 134 and Kheman V. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Ferozepore and others, 1970 PunLJ 494, decided by me on the 16th April, 1970.