- (1.) THE consolidation operation (repartition) in the village in which the land in question is situate, was carried out and finalised in the year 1959- 1960. The appellant claims to be in possession of the land in question as exclusive right-holder. None, it is admitted, filed any proceedings or raised any objection to the consolidation proceedings.
(2.) RESPONDENTS 2 to 10, however, filed a petition under S. 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. before the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, claiming redistribution of land. The said petition was filed on 22/1/1987. The Director exercising power under S. 42 of the aforesaid Act, in terms of his order dtd. 9/6/1987 held that the request of Respondents 2 to 10 cannot be acceded to, but it further held that the land in question was taken over by the Panchayat from the right-holders for common purposes. The conclusion thus reached was that Respondents 2 to 10 have no right but considering their alternate request, it was directed that the case be remanded to the Consolidation Officer for redefining shares of the right-holders in the land. S. 42 of the aforesaid Act reads as under: "42. Power of State Government to call for proceedings.-The State Government may at any time for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed, scheme prepared or confirmed or repartition made by any officer under this Act, call for and examine the record of any case pending before or disposed of by such officer and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit: Provided that no order or scheme or repartition shall be varied or reversed without giving the parties interested notice to appear and opportunity to be heard except in cases where the State Government is satisfied that the proceedings have been vitiated by unlawful consideration."
(3.) CHALLENGING the order dtd. 9/6/1987, a writ petition was filed by the appellant before the High Court which was dismissed in limine by the impugned judgment and order which is under challenge in this appeal. The challenge before the High Court, to the legality of the order dtd. 9/6/1987 was on various grounds, out of which we are concerned with the two grounds, namely, (i) bar of limitation; and (ii) jurisdiction of the Director of Consolidation. The appeal deserves to be allowed on both the grounds.;