Rule 18 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949 does not apply to petitions filed under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 challenging the legality or validity of a scheme prepared or confirmed or repartition made.

PREM CHAND JAIN, J.

1. This petition has been filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order of Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jullundur, dated March 27, 1981. The consolidation proceedings in the village of the parties, Lakhan Kalan, telisil and district Kapurthala, started in the year 1956. The petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) on which the impugned order was passed, was filed on September 21, 1976, along with an application for condonation of delay. The Addl. Director Consolidation of Holdings, though noticed that the petition was barred by time, yet without condoning the delay, proceeded to decide the same on merits. At the time of motion hearing, one of the points raised on behalf of the petitioner was that the order of the Addl. Director, Consolidation of Holdings was illegal and void, inasmuch as without first condoning the delay, he decided the petition on merits. Finding force in the contention of the learned counsel, notice of motion was issued. In obedience to the notices issued, the respondents put in appearance and filed written statement. On the question of delay, the plea put forth on behalf of respondent No. 2 is that the provisions of Rule 18 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949 (hereinafter called the Rules ) did not apply as the petition had been filed against the scheme and not against any order. In support of that plea, reliance was placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Haqiqat V/s. Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings Punjab, 1981 Punj LJ 239 : (AIR 1981 Punj and Har 204). The Bench hearing the petition, on consideration of the entire matter. doubted the correctness of the view taken in Haquiqat s case (supra) and consequently directed that the petition be heard by a larger Bench. That is how we are seized of this matter.

2. The short legal question that needs decision in the instant case may be formulated thus:-

"Whether the bar of limitation under Rule 18 of the Rules would also apply to a petition filed under Section 42 of the Act impugning the scheme prepared or confirmed or repartition made by an officer under the Act,?"

3. Before dealing with the question, which is purely a question of law, on merits, it would be appropriate to notice the provisions of Section 42 of the Act and Rule 18 of the Rules which read as under:-

"42. Power of State Government to call for proceedings: The State Government may at any time for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed, scheme prepared or confirmed or repartition made by any officer under this Act, call for and examine the record of any case pending before or disposed of by such officer and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit. Provided that no order, scheme or repartition shall be varied or reversed without giving the parties interested notice to appear and opportunity to be heard except in cases where the State Government is satisfied that the proceedings have been vitiated by unlawful consideration".

XX XX XX XX

(Rule 18)

"18. Limitation for application under Section 42:-

" An application under Section 42 shall be made within six months of the date of the order against which it is filed: Provided that in computing the period of limitation the time spent in obtaining certified copies of the orders and the grounds of appeal, if any, filed under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) of Section 21, required to accompany the application shall be excluded: Provided further, that an application may be admitted after the period of limitation prescribed therefor if the applicant satisfies the authority competent to take action under Section 42 that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. Section 42 of the Act which has been repro