http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: GRAM PANCHAYAT KAKRAN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ADDL. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       03/10/1997

BENCH: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R                 THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 1997 Present:                Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sujata V. Manohar                Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P.Wadhwa R.K.Kapoor, (S.K.Srivastava)  Adv. for Anis Ahmad Khan, Advs for the appellant A.V.Palli,  Adv.   for  Ms.Rekha   Palli,   Adv.   for   the Respondents.                          O R D E R      The following Order of the Court was delivered:      Special leave granted.      The appellant  is Gram Panchayat of village Kakran.  In consolidation proceedings  which took place in the year 1956 under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation)  Act 1948,  the net  entitlement of Sangha Singh, father  of the  2nd respondent  was held to be of the value of  152-15-9 pai  and after  making deduction  of  the value 3-4-3  paid for  common purposes, he was allotted 149- 10-6 paid  of land.   The  Resolution No. 120 which is dated 16.6.56 is  under Section  20  of  the  Act  confirming  the Consolidation Scheme.   Prior  to such  confirmation,  under Section 19  the draft scheme is required to be published and objections have  to be  invited which  have to be considered within the  time prescribed  in Section 19. Thereafter under Section 20,  after considering  the  objections,  the  final scheme  has   to  be   confirmed.    Under  Section  21  the consolidation Officer  is required  to carry out repartition in accordance with the scheme of consolidation in the manner set out  therein.   Under sub-section  (2) of Section 21 any person aggrieved  by  repartition  is  entitled  to  file  a written objection  within 15  days of the publication before the Consolidation Officer.  There are further provisions for appeal under Section 21.  Under Section 42, a power is given to the  State Government to call for, inter alia, any scheme prepared   or confirmed  or repartition  made by any officer under the  Act for  the purpose  of  examining  legality  or propriety thereof.   The  Section provides  that this can be done by  the State  Government at  any time.  In the present case no  objections under  Section 21  appear to  have  been

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

filed by  the father  of the  2nd respondent  who  was  then alive.   However, after  40 years,  in the year 1996 the 2nd respondent made  an application  under Section  42  for  re- opening the repartition, on the ground that there should not have been  any deduction  from his land for common purposes. This application  has been  entertained and an order as been passed by  Additional Director,  Consolidation dated 23.5.96 directing that  a portion of the Bachat land be given to the 2nd respondent.   The  Writ Petition  filed by  the  present appellant -  Gram Panchayat  has been  dismissed.  Hence the present appeal has been filed before us.      Rule 18  of the  East Punjab Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of  Fragmentation) Rules, 1949 prescribes that an application under Section 42 shall be made within six months of the  date of  the order against which it is filed.  Under the 2nd  proviso to that Rule, there is a power to admit the application after  the period  of limitation, which requires the  applicant  to  satisfy  the  authorities  that  he  has sufficient cause  for not making the application within such period.   The 2nd  respondent has  relied upon a decision of the Full  Bench of  the Punjab  & Haryana  High Court in the case of  Jagtar Singh vs. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Jalandar (AIR 1984 Pb. & Haryana 216).  In this decision the  High Court has held that the period prescribed under Rule 18 will apply only in respect of orders which are passed under  the Act  and will  have no  application  to  a scheme which is framed r repartition which has been effected under the Act.      This, however,  cannot be  understood as  enabling  the party which  is aggrieved by the scheme or by repartition to make an  application under  Section 42 after an unreasonably long lapse  of time.   Even where no period of limitation is prescribed, the  party aggrieved  is required  to  move  the appropriate authority  for relief  within a reasonable time. In fact  this Court  in the  case of Gram Panchayat, Village Kanonda vs.  Director, Consolidation of Holding (1989 Suppl. (2) SCC  465) dealing with Rule 18 itself, said that when no limitation is prescribed for an application under Section 42 dealing with  confirmation of  the scheme,  the  application should be  made within  a reasonable  time and this question will have  to be decided on the facts of each case.  In that case the  delay of  about 3  years and 8 months in filing an application under Section 42 by the Panchayat was held to be not unreasonable.   In  the present case, however, the delay is of  40 years.   We  have tried  to ascertain from the 2nd respondent  whether   there  is  any  explanation  for  this unreasonable and  inordinate delay.    But  no  satisfactory explanation appears to be there for this inordinate delay in making  the   application  under   Section  42.    The  only contention which has been urged before us by respondent No.2 relates to  the application  of Rule  18 and  the period  of limitation prescribed therein not being applicable where the challenge is  to the  consolidation scheme  and repartition. But  even   if  Rule   18  is  not  directly  attracted,  an application which made after such inordinate delay ought not to have  bee entertained.   It  is also contended by the 2nd respondent that  the appellants  have  no  locus  standi  to challenge  the   order  of   the  Additional   Director   of Consolidation  in  a  writ  Petition  because  the  land  in question continued  to remain in the name of the proprietary body.   He drew  our attention  to Rule  16(ii) of  the said Rules.   Rules 16(ii),  however, quite clearly provides that the management  of such  land shall be done by the Panchayat of the  estate or estates concerned on behalf of the village proprietary party  and the  Panchayat shall  have to utilise

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

the income  and  the  benefits  of  the  estate  or  estates concerned.   Even before Additional Director, the appellants were made  a party-respondent.   This contention, therefore, has no merit.      The appeal  is, therefore, allowed.  The impugned order of the  High Court  is set  aside and  the Writ  Petition is allowed accordingly.  No costs.