GRAM PANCHAYAT KAKRAN versus ADDL. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ANR.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 442 · Decided: 03-10-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
GRAM PANCHA YAT KAKRAN 
' 
v. 
ADDL. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 3, 1997 
[SUJATAV.MANOHARANDD.P. WADHWA,JJ.] 
East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) 
Act, 1948: Sections 19,20,21 and 42. 
East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) 
Rules, 1949: 
Rule 16(ii) and 18-&cond Proviso-Scheme and repartition effected 
under the Act-Challenge to-Limitation period for-Net entitlement of father 
D of second respondent determined in consolidation proceedings in 1956-No 
objection filed by father of second respondent during his lifetime-Application 
for re-opening the partition made by second respondent in 1996-Application 
allowed by Additional Director Consolidation-Writ preferred by appellant 
Gram Panchayat dismissed-Hence this.appeal-Held, even if Rule 18 Wal" not 
directly attracted application should have been filed within reasonable 
E time-Jn this case inordinaie delay of 40 years ha!" not been explained 
satisfactorily-Therefore application of second respondent was not 
maintainable. 
F 
Jagtar Singh v. Additiof)al Director, Consolidation of Holdings, 
Jalandar, AIR (1984) Pb. Haryana 216, referred.to. 
Gram Panchayat, Village Kanonda v. Director, Consolidation of 
Holdings, (1989) Suppl. 2 SCC 465, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7221of1997. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.12.96 of the Punjab & Haryana 
H 
High Court in C. W.P. No. 10741 of 1996. 
R.K. Kapoor, (S.K. Srivastava) for Anis Ahmad Khan for the Appellant. 
A.V. Palli for Ms. Rekha Palli for the.Respondents. 
442 
+ -
\ 
l 
GRAM PANCHA YAT KAKRAN v. ADDL DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION 
443 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
A 
Special leave granted. 
The appellant is Gram Panchayat~ of village Kakran. In consolidation 
proceedings which took place in the year I 956 under the East Punjab Holdings 
(Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 1948, the -net entitlement B 
of Sangha Singh, father of the 2nd respondent was held to be of the value 
of 152-I 4-9 pai and after making deduction of the value 3-4-3 pai for common 
purposes, he was allotted 149-10-6 pai ofland. The Resolution No. 120 which_ 
is dated 16.6.56 is under Section 20 of the Act confirming the Consolidation 
Scheme. Prior to such confirmation, under Section 19 the draft scheme is C 
required to be published and objections have to be invited which have to be 
considered within the time prescribed in section 19. Thereafter under section 
20, after considering the objections, the final scheme has to be confirmed. 
Under Section 21 .the Consolidation Officer is required to' carry out repartition 
in accordance .with the scheme of consolidation in the manner set out therein. D 
Under sub-section (2) of Section 21 any person aggrieved by repartition is 
entitled to file a written objection within 15 days of the publication before the 
consolidation officer. There are further provisions for appeal under section 21. 
Under Section 42, a power is given to the State Government to call for, inter 
alia, any scheme prepared or confirmed or repartition made by any officer 
under the Act for the purpose of examining legality or propriety thereof. The E 
Section provides that this can be done by the State Government at ariy time. 
In the present case no objections under Section 21 appear to have been filed 
by the father of the 2nd respondent who was then alive. However, after 40 
years, in the year 1996 the 2nd respondent made an application under Section 
42 for re-opening the repartition, on the ground that there should not have F 
been any deduction from his land there should not have been any deduction 
from his land for common purposes. This application has been entertained 
and an order has been passed by Additional Director, Consolidation dated 
23.5.96 directing that a portion of the Bachat land be given to the 2nd 
respondent. The writ Petition filed by the present appellant-Gram Panchayat G 
has been dismissed. Hence the present appeal has been filed before us. 
Rule 18 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of 
Fragmentation) Rules, 1949 prescribes that an application under Section 42 
shall be made within six months of the date of the order against which it is 
filed. Under the 2nd proviso to that Rule, there is a power to admit the H 
• 444 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A application after the period of limitation, which requir

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.