Point of Law : in absence of prescription of any specific period of limitation in a statute, the remedies cannot be said to be available to a party to assail an order passed under such Act at its whims.

JUDGMENT :

By way of instant appeal, appellants have assailed judgment dated 26.12.2007 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 1632 of 2002.

2. Brief facts, forming backdrop of case are that predecessor-in-interest of appellant No.1 alongwith appellant No.2 had preferred a revision petition before the Additional Director, Consolidation on 12.08.1997, inter alia, challenging the consolidation proceedings finalized in the year 1986-87. The Additional Director, Consolidation, H.P. vide order dated 29.12.2001 allowed the revision petition. The order so passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation, was assailed before this Court in CWP No. 1632 of 2002 broadly on two grounds, firstly, that the Additional Director, Consolidation had exceeded the jurisdiction by entertaining a revision petition after 10 years and, secondly, that the order was non-speaking.

3. Learned Single Judge, by upholding the contention of the writ petitioner, proceeded to set-aside the order dated 29.12.2001 passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation. It was found and held by learned Single Judge that the consolidation in the concerned area stood closed after its finalization in the year 1986-87. The revision petition filed before the Additional Director, Consolidation was clearly beyond limitation. It was held that no limitation was provided under Section 54 of the Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971, still the same had to be filed within reasonable time and 10 years could not be said to be reasonable time. Learned Single Judge further held the order passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation to be non-speaking.

4. Sh. Ajay Kumar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sh. Gautam Sood, Advocate, on behalf of the appellants has argued that the order passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation was perfectly legal in the given facts and circumstances of the case and learned Single Judge has erred in setting aside the same without any basis.

5. We have perused the order dated 29.12.2001 passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation. Its perusal reveals that the said order is bereft of any reasoning whatsoever. The concluding para of said order reads as under:

“……Both the parties were heard in detail and the concerned record has been examined. From the inspection of the record, it is found that the points raised by the counsel of the appellant are based on facts, hence the case of the appellant is accepted and the order for the following tartim is passed:

Copy of the order be sent to the C.O. Hamirpur for compliance and preparation of Tartim and Tatima. The file be consigned to the record room after compliance and necessary action. Announced. Place: Jaisinghpur.

Sd/-

Dated: 29