- (1.) This is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for impugning an order dated 28.3.1968, of the State of Haryana (Respondent 1).
(2.) Nand Lal petitioner and Baru, respondent 2, are right-holders in village Balu, Tehsil Narwana, where consolidation operations are taking place. A Scheme of consolidation was drawn up and confirmed. The repartition under Section 21 (1) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter called 'the Act') was made. On appeal by the petitioner, the Settlement Officer by an order, dated 22-12-1965, effected some changes in the allotment of the petitioner. Some area was taken out of the allotment of Baru respondent and given to the petitioner. Baru was not impleaded as a respondent in that appeal. He, however, happened to be present before the Settlement Officer. In the order of the Settlement Officer, dated 22-12-1965 (Copy Annexure 'A'), it is recited :- "On my suggestion Baru has agreed to take of the appellant's area adjoining the path and in this way there will be no necessity of providing path to the tak of Baru and the area of the path will be saved. So, in order to redress the grievances of the appellant the tak of Baru is shifted to Killa No. 249/2, 3 and the following changes are ordered as agreed to by both of them."
(3.) Baru made a petition under Section 42 of the Act against that order of the Settlement Officer before the Additional Director, who, on 28-3-1968, allowed that petition and set aside the order of the Settlement Officer. This order, dated 28-3-1968 (Annexure B to the writ petition) is being assailed as illegal on three grounds, only two of which are now being pressed at the time of arguments. They are :- (a) That the order, dated 22-12-1965, of the Settlement Officer was based on an agreement or exchange voluntarily arrived at between Baru and Nand Lal petitioner. Consequently, no appeal or revision lay against such an order under Section 42 of the Act. (b) That the application under Section 42 of the Act was time-barred and the Additional Director has neither given reason for condoning the delay, nor, in fact, did he condone the delay and, as such, the order was violative of the proviso to Rule 18 of the Rules framed under the Act.;