Jagmohan Lal Tandon, J. - (1.) The proceedings for the consolidation of holdings in village Dattewal, Tehsil Zira, District Ferozepur, took place in 1955 56 where in a common passage bearing Khasra No. 206 was reserved and it runs on the bank of the canal which is 30 feet wide. On April 7, 1975, Chand Kaur respondent No. 3 filed an application under Sec. 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act (hereafter the Act) raising objection to the alignment of the said path in Khasra No. 206 This application was allowed by the Additional Director vide order dated October 24, 1975 (P. 3). The petitioners have assailed the order P. 3 in the present writ petition.
(2.) The only argument raised before the Additional Director on behalf of respondent No. 3 was that path No 206 had been wrongly located at the spot and that it should be corrected. The Additional Director observed that respondent No. 3 had got the Nishan Dehi of the path through a Commission, who had reported that its location (Qaimi) was wrong. The Additional Director holding that the path had been wrongly located on account of the mistake of the consolidation authorities condoned the delay in filing the petition under Sec. 42 of the Act. The Additional Director further accepted the petition of respondent No. 3 and remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer with a direction that he should check up the report of the Commission after spot measurement and if he finds that the Qaimi of the oath is wrong, then he should set it right and should make necessary changes after hearing the parties
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the Additional Director could condone the delay in filing the petition under Sec. 42 of the Act and further could accept it by recording a firm finding that the Qaimi of the path already done in 1955 -56 was wrong. The Additional Director did rely on the report of the Commission (who did net associate the petitioners when he inspected the spot and made his report) in condoning the delay in filing the petition under Sec. 42 of the Act, but at the same time left it to be decided by the Consolidation Officer whether the report of the Commission was right or wrong. The Impugned order of the Additional Director is therefore, self contradictory. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner must prevail. The Additional Director at best could give relief in the petition of respondent No. 3 by accepting it after recording a firm finding that the location of path No. 206 already made was not correct. No such firm finding has been recorded by the Additional Director. The Additional Director could not first accept the petition of respondent No. 3 and then leave the matter to be decided by the Consolidation Officer the impugned order of the Additional Director (P 3) cannot be sustained.;