The competent authority under Section 42 of the Act has the jurisdiction to admit and grant an application even after the expiry of the prescribed period if the applicant can satisfy the authority that there was sufficient cause for not making the application within limitation. However, the authority cannot merely waive or ignore the period of limitation or extend the period in any case without being satisfied about the existence of sufficient cause for filing the petition beyond time.

R.S.Narula, J.

1. The answer to the solitary and short question raised by the petitioners in this case depends upon the interpretation and scope of the second proviso to rule 18 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Punjab Rules) framed under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act).

2. The petitioners and respondent No. 2 are right-holders of village Singar, Tehsil Ferozepore Jhirka, District Gurgaon. Consolidation work in that village was started by notification dated July 11, 1956. The consolidation scheme was published on April 18, 1957, and confirmed on May 29, 1957. Repartition proceedings under Section 21(1) of the Act were carried out on December 12, 1957, and after the culmination of the entire proceedings, the record was consigned on February 28, 1959.

3. More than 3 1/2 year later, respondent No. 2 moved the State Government under Section 42 of the Act on October 9, 1962. Before that, rule 18 prescribing six months period of limitation for making an application under Section 42 of the Act had been enforced with effect from March 18, 1960. The said rule reads :-

"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".

4. It is common case of both sides that the question of limitation for the application of respondent No. 2 under Section 42 of the Act was governed by and had to be decided under the above quoted rule. At the hearing of the petition under Section 42 of the Act, an objection as to the application of respondent No. 2 being barred by time was raised by the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, learned Additional Director, accepted the application of respondent no. 2 by his order, dated February 5, 1963 (Annexure A) in the following words :-

"The petition was received on 9th October, 1962 and 21(1) was done on 29th May, 1957. Thus, the petition is time-barred.

Shri Chhotey Khan, petitioner has represented that he is a Ghair Maurusi in village Singar. The petition has been examined by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation of Holdings, Gurgaon, vide his note dated 23rd October, 1962. From that I find that he has been in possession of land as "Ghair Maurusi Bawajeh Rishtadari". The reasons given by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation of Holdings, are cogent and well founded. I, therefore, order under Section 42 that Shri Chhotey be put into cultivating possession of Khasra No. 4245, 4247 and 4247 (total area 5-B-18-B). Accordingly, I accord approval to proposal Exhibit P.A. In the special circumstances of the case, the time limit is waived and the following changes are ordered under Section 42 of the Act".

5. It is the above-quoted order of respondent No. 1 which has been impugned in this case by Shri D.N. Aggarwal, counsel for the petitioners, on the ground that it has been passed in violation of the mandatory requirements of rule 18 of the Punjab Rules. A plain reading of the order shows that :-

(1) The Additional Director found as a fact that the application of respondent No. 2 under Section 42 of the Act was hopelessly barred by time;

(2) The reasons given by the Settlement Officer in his proposal (Exhibit P.A.) to interfere under Section 42 were cogent and well founded, and, accordingly, the Additional Director accord