HEADNOTE:

The appellant--Panchayat owned 1200 Bighas of land in Village Kanonda Distt. Rohtak in Haryana. A Scheme of con- solidation of Holdings under Section 20 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 1948 was confirmed on 15.1.1974, as a result whereof the Panchayat’s land was consolidated, repartitioned and allot- ted to persons, allegedly having no right to hold the same with the result, the Panchayat was reduced as a landless person, and financially weak. The Panchayat, therefore, on 20.9.1977 moved an application under section 42 of the Act objecting to the utilization of the Land of the value of -/2/- (Two annas) and the allotments made to other right holders.

After hearing the parties, the Director of Consolidation of Holdings by his order dated 8.2.79 set aside the scheme and remanded the case to the consolidation officer with some directions. The Director took the view that even though the application had been made much beyond the period of limita- tion of six months contemplated under Rule 18, yet in view of the fact that the Panchayat had no other land to culti- vate due to which the Panchayat was unable to develop the agricultural Schemes, condoned the delay and allowed the application as aforesaid. Against the said orders the Re- spondents moved the High Court by means of a Writ Petition urging inter alia that the Director had condoned the delay without there being any ground for the same and thus had acted illegally. The High Court held that the Director condoned the delay on extraneous considerations and accord-ingly quashed the impugned order of 8.2.79 passed by the Director. Hence the Panchayat has filed this appeal after obtaining Special Leave. Allowing the appeal, this Court, HELD: (Per K.N. Saikia & M. Fathima Beevi, JJ.)

Section 42 of the Act envisages proceedings wherein order is passed, scheme prepared or confirmed or repartition made. These are the distinct proceedings for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction under this section. [585B]

Applying Rule 18, the application has to be one under section 42 of the Act, and it has to be against an order and under the first proviso, a certified copy of the order is required to accompany the application and in computing the period of limitation of six months, the time spent in ob-taining the certified copy is to be excluded. [585F].

Rule 18 has to be interpreted as it is found, and the words of the rule are simple, precise and unambiguous and no more is necessary than to understand these words in their natural and ordinary sense. Two different meanings cannot be given to the same word "order" namely, that, in section 42 it does not include scheme prepared or confirmed or reparti- tion made, while in Rule 18, it would include them. [586B-C]

The Rule did not come into play when a petitioner chal-lenged either the scheme of consolidation including its preparation or confirmation or the repartition made in pursuance thereof. The amendment made this position clear. [586E]

Though section 42 envisaged orders, preparation or confirmation of scheme and repartition separately, Rule 18 provides for limitation only in respect of an application under that section in a proceeding where an order was passed. There is the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius---expression of one thing implies the exclusion of another. When mention has been made only of "orders", the inference would be that preparation or confirmation of scheme and repartition are excluded. [588F-G]

In matters like consolidation of Holdings by a scheme and the preparation and confirmation of the scheme and repartition thereafter, the objections may arise at various stages for various reasons and it will not be possible to prescribe any hard and fast rule as to the reasonable period after which an application could be made under section 42 of the Act. The Legislature itself did not do so. [589C-D]

In the instant case, it has not been shown that the Panchayat earlier moved an