I.S.TIWANA, J.

1. The following question of law raised in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has assumed considerable importance as our answer to the same is not in consonance with the conclusions of a number of Single Bench judgments of this Court:-

Whether the bar of limitation created by Rule 18 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949, would also operate when a petition under S. 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, is filed impugning only the scheme prepared or confirmed or repartition made by any officer under the Act? In other words, whether Rule 18 would apply to the facts of a case whether no specific order of any of the authorities passed under the Act is the subject matter of challenge in a petition under Section 42 of the Act?

This question being purely a question of law, it is but appropriate to reproduce the above-noted provisions of law at this very stage:-

"(Section) 42. 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 repartit