- (1.) This petition has arisen out of the consolidation of holdings proceedings held in village Bhadal Thuha, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala. The consolidation of holdings in this village was completed on August 18, 1956. In accordance with the scheme, repartitions took place and the possessions of the lands were exchanged. No appeal or revision was filed under Section 21(3) or Section 21(4) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It was only in the year 1965, that a revision petition was filed by Harbans Lal, respondent No. 2, under Section 42 of the Act. The Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, allowed the revision petition and ordered certain changes which adversely affected the petitioners also. It is against this order of the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings that this petition has been filed.
(2.) The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petition filed by Harbans Lal, respondent No. 2, before the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, was hopelessly time-barred and no sufficient grounds for condonation of delay had been made out and that the petitioners were neither given an opportunity of being heard nor were they summoned by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, at any stage of the proceedings. No return has been filed by respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5.
(3.) I find from the order of the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, which is annexed to the petition as Annexure 'A' that the petitioner Prem Singh, was not present at the time of the passing of the order. Khata of Bakhtawar Singh and Prem Singh, petitioner, seems to be joint. The only reason given for condonation of delay by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, was that nishan dehi was not given. This does not seem to be a sufficient reason for condonation of delay. Each day's delay has to be explained as was held by a Full Bench of this Court in Gurdial Singh and others v. The State of Punjab and others, 1967 CurLJ 602. Moreover, Prem Singh, petitioner, was not made a party to the petition filed before the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings. The impugned order was not implemented as the admitting Bench had granted stay of the operation of the impugned order at the time of the admission of this petition on October 17, 1966. The parties have settled down for the last about 20 years and are in possession of their respective holdings since the year 1956. It would amount to unsettling the settled matters if the petition is not allowed. In this view of the matter, this petition is allowed and the order Annexure 'A' to the petition is quashed, but there will be no order as to costs.;