GRAM PANCHAYAT, VILLAGE KANONDA, TEHSIL BAHADURGARH, DISTRICT ROHTAK, THROUGH ITS SARPANCH versus DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS, HARYANA, CHANDIGARH AND ORS.

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 576 · Decided: 24-10-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. SAIKIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
GRAM PANCHAYAT, VILLAGE KANONDA, TEHSIL 
BAHADURGARH, DISTRICT ROHTAK, THROUGH 
ITS SARP ANCH 
v. 
DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION OF HO_LDINGS, HARYANA, 
CHANDIGARH AND ORS. 
-
OCTOBER 24, 1989 
[K.N. SAIKIA, K. RAMASWAMY AND M. FATHIMA 
BEEVI, JJ.] 
East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Frag-
mentation) Act 1948/East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Preven-
tion of Fragmentation) Rules 1949-Sections 21(2) and 42/Rule JS--
Confirmation of Scheme-Whether tantamount to an order under the 
Act-Limitation period provided in Rule 18-Whether attracted. 
D 
The appellant-Panchayat owned 1200 Bighas of land in Village 
Kanonda Dist!. Rohtak in Haryana. A Scheme of consolidation of Hold-
ings 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 allotted to persons, allegedly having no right to hold the same with 
E 
the result, the Panchayat was reduced as a landless person, and finan-
cially weak. The Panchayat, therefore, on 20.9.1977 moved an applica-
tion 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 
hoiders. 
F 
-After hearing the parties, the Director of Consolidation of Hold-
ings 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 limitation of six months contemplated nnder Rule 18, yet 
in view of the fact that the Panchayat had no other land to cultivate due 
CJ 
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 Respondents 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 illeg-
ally. The High Court held that the Director condoned the delay on 
H extraneous -considerations and accordingly quashed the impugned_ 
576 
GRAM PANCHA YAT v. DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION 
577 
order of 8.2. 79 passed by the· Director. Hence the Panchayat has filed 
A 
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 proceedigs 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. l58SB) 
B 
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, C 
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 obtaining the certified copy is to be excluded. (S8SF] 
Rule 18 has to be interpreted as it is fonnd, and the words of D 
the rule ·are simple, precise and unambiguous and no more is neces· 
sary than to understand these words in their naturai 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 repartition made, while in Rule 18, it would 
include them. -[586B-C] 
-
E 
The Rule did not come Into play when a petitioner challenged 
either the scheme of consolidation including its preparation or confir. 
mation or the repartition made in pursuance thereof. The amendment 
made this p(Jsition clear. (S86E] 
-
. 
Though section 42 envisaged orders, preparation or confirmation 
F 
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~xpression of one thing implies the exclusion of 
another. When mention has been made only of "orders", the inference G 
would he 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 H 
578 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] Supp. 1 S.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.