Rule 18 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949, is intra vires section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948.

1. Jiwan Singh and others filed a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings dated 27-7-1967, a copy of which was filed as Annexure A to the writ petition. Written statements were filed on behalf of Puran Singh and Shankar Singh, sons of Sunder Singh, in whose favour the order had been made by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings. The writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on the ground that the application under section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act). had been made beyond the period of six months prescribed by Rule 18 of the East Punjab Holdings (consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949, (hereinafter called the Rules) and that the delay in filing the application had been condoned by the learned Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, on wholly extraneous grounds. In coming to that conclusion, the learned Judge relied on Division Bench judgment of this court in Sewa Singh V/s. State of Punjab, ILR (1967)2 Punj and Har 89, and refused to go into the merits of the case. Puran Singh has filed the present appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of the Learned Single Judge.

2. This appeal was earlier heard by us and accepted on October 19, 1970, on the ground that rule 18 of the Rules was ultra vires section 42 of the Act with the result that the application under section 42 could be made at any time and could not be dismissed on the ground of limitation as had been held by the learned Single Judge. That judgment has since been reported as Puran Singh V/s. The State of Punjab, 1971 Cur LJ 30.

3. An application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court (S. C. A. 16 of 1971) was then filed and in that application it was pointed out that Section 46 (2)(ff) of the Act, which had not been brought to our notice at the hearing of the appeal, authorised the State Government to frame a rule providing the period of limitation for filing applications under section 42 of the Act. At the hearing of that application, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the State of Punjab that the appeal might be reheard. The learned counsel for the respondents to that application had no objection to that course being adopted. Accordingly by our order dated April 28, 1972 we set aside our judgment delivered on October 19, 1970 and directed that this appeal may be set down for hearing on May 19, 1972. Due to certain reasons, the appeal could not be heard till today.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has again argued that rule 18 of the Rules is ultra vires section 42 of the Act and in support of his submission reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Delhi High Court (K. S. Hegde, C. J., now a Judge of the Supreme Court). in M. C. Rahbar V/s. Union of India, 1968 Delhi LT 78, as was done earlier. The section under consideration in that case was section 24 of the Displaced persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (44 of 1954). and rule 104 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, which are as under:-

-

"Section 24(1) the Chief Settlement Commissioner may at any time call for the record of any proceeding under this Act in which a settlement Officer, an Assistant Settlement Commissioner, an Additional Settlement Commissioner, a Managing Officer or a Managing Corporation has passed an order for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any such order and may pass such order in relation thereto as he thinks fit. X X X X X X

X X X X X X

Rule 104(1) A petition for revision under the Act shall be drawn up and presented in the same manner and within the same period as a memorandum of appeal and shall be accompanied by a copy of the order sought to be revised.

X X X X X X