Kushal Singh vs Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jullundur

M.M. Punchhi, J. (Oral)

The Motion Bench dealing with this petition on 14.11.1977 admitted it only in so far as the question of limitation was concerned. Initially, an order of the Additional Director dated 2.9.1976 (Annexure P3) was challenged in this Court in Civil Writ No. 8567 of 1976 wherein the Additional Director while entertaining the petition against re partition had condoned the delay. That order was quashed by this Court and the matter was remitted back for passing a fresh order after hearing all parties concerned. Thereafter, a fresh order Annexure P4 was passed by the Additional Director on 13.9.1977 whereby changes were effected in the re partition. As is latent in the body of the order, limitation stood condoned by the Additional Director on the basis of his earlier order Annexure P3 for in the subsequent order there is no discussion about limitation. Taking that limitation had been condoned by him and the question of limitation went to the root of the case, the Motion Bench thought it proper to confine this petition to the question of limitation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. G.R. Majithia, has been confronted with the rule laid down by this Court in Haqiqat v. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, and others, 1981 PLJ 239 (D.B.), and Jagtar Singh v. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings and others, 1984 PLJ 222 : 1984 R.R.R. 31(Full Bench). These authorities categorically lay down that no period of limitation is prescribed for a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, challenging the scheme or repartition.

Mr. Majithia finding himself cornered, has two objections to the disposal of the petition on the question of limitation alone. Firstly, he contends that the Motion Bench could not have confined the admission of the petition to the question of limitation. In support thereof, he relies on Teja Singh v. The Union Territory of Chandigarh and others, 6, 1981 (1) S.L.R. 274, Ramji Bhagala v. Krishnarao Karirao Bagre and another, AIR 1982 S.C. 1223 and Rule 36 of the Writ Jurisdiction Rules. His second objection is that on merits he has a strong case on equity, for the petitioners are being made to part with an area which they had lawfully reserved in the scheme.

So far as the first objection is concerned, it cannot be entertained in view of the specific order of the Bench confining the petition only to the question of limitation. Sitting singly, I cannot go against the dictates of the Motion Bench and enlarge the scope of the writ petition. Once this view is taken, the second objection raised by Mr. Majithia is of no value, for I cannot examine to correctness of the impugned order on any other point, except that of limitation.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no option but to dismiss this petition in view of the Full Bench decision in Jagtar Singh''s case (supra). Accordingly, the same is dismissed, but without any order as to costs.