- (1.) Gurmej Singh alias Iqbal Singh petitioner is a resident of village Khurshidpur, Tehsil Nakodar, District Jullundur, where proceedings for the consolidation of holdings took place in 1959-60. The repartition took place in 1960. On December 22, 1975, the Gram Panchayat, Khurshidpur, filed a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereafter the Act) alleging that before consolidation field No. 1444 was Ghair Mumkin Chhappar and the rain water of the village used to fall in it. During consolidation field No. 1444 was wrongly allotted to the petitioner against the provisions of the scheme which has caused inconvenience to the villagers. The case of the petitioner before the Additional Director was that he has been allotted plot No. 164 which does not contain the old Chappar comprising field No. 1444. The Additional Director held vide order dated September 8, 1976 (P.2) that field No. 1444 was a part of plot No. 164 and that the same had been wrongly allotted to the petitioner against the provisions of the scheme. The Additional Director consequently ordered that the area of field No. 1444 be kept as Ghair Mumkin Chhappar and the petitioner and his co-sharers were given alternative land. The petitioner has assailed the order P.2 in the present writ.
(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the repartition in partition proceedings in village Khurshidpur took place in 1960 and the petition under section 42 of the Act filed by the Panchayat in 1975 was time barred. The Additional Director did not condone the delay in filing the petition under section 42 of the Act before passing the impugned order. The impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground. The learned counsel for the Gram Panchayat has contended that the petitioner did not raise objection before the Additional Director that the petition filed under section 42 of the Act was time barred and as such this plea cannot be raised in writ proceedings. Reliance has been placed on Bhagat Singh v. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jullundur and others,1966 PunLR 496.
(3.) In Bhagat Singh's case , one of the points urged before the High Court was that the petition under section 42 of the Act had been filed after limitation and the Additional Director had erred in law in entertaining the same. It was observed :- "It is clear from the impugned order that no such point was raised before respondent No. 1. In the absence of that, the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise the same for the first time in these proceedings, especially when it involves questions of fact. Moreover, even if the petition had been filed after the period of limitation prescribed in rule 18 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949 (hereafter called the Rules), this period could be extended by respondent No. 1, if sufficient cause had been shown for the delay. Since this point was not raised, therefore, this aspect of the matter was considered by him. Under these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be permitted to urge this point now in these proceedings.";