The preparation or confirmation of a scheme, implementation of the same in the form of repartition, and the passing of an order by a competent authority on the objections raised or the appeals filed under the various provisions of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, are three different connotations and concepts envisaged by the Act.

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 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."

"(Rule) 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 competing 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 satisfied the authority competent to take action under Section 42 that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period."

2. This Rule 18 was undisputedly added to the Rules Vide Punjab Government Notification No. 1426-D (II) 60/1527 dated March 18, 1960. The facts giving rise to this question are as follows:

Respondent No. 2, Waqf Board, owns Killa Nos. 12/6/2, 7/2 and 13/9/1 and 10/2 in village Singh, District Rupar. On August 31, 1977, this respondent filed an application under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short, the Act) for the provision of a link passage to the said Kurrah or block of land. The Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, after giving due notice and hearing to the petitioner, provided the requisite passage to the land of the Waqf Board vide his order dated August 2, 1979 (Annexure-P-1). It is mentioned in paragraph 4 of this order that though the petition under Section 42 of the Act was barred by time and no objection in that regard had been taken by the respondent (now the petitioner), yet the Additional Director felt that as the omission in not providing a passage to the Kurrah of respondent No. 2 was on the part of the consolidation authorities, it was appropriate for him to condone the delay in the filing of the said application for the rectification of that omission. It is this order of the Additional Director which is impugned primarily on the ground that neither the petitioner before the Additional Director had made out a case for the condonation of the delay nor was the said officer justified in condoning the same in the light of the provisions of Rule 18 referred to above. It is further maintained