CWP No.8227 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.8227 of 1988 Date of decision:18.03.2011 Kartar Singh and others ..... Petitioners Versus The Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Chandigarh and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr.A.P.Kaushal, Advocate for Mr.R.K.S.Brar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.S.S.Sahu, AAG, Punjab for respondent no.1. Mr.Vikas Singh, Advocate for respondent no.2. ***** RAJIVE BHALLA, J.(ORAL) The petitioners impugn an order dated 29.12.1987/ 11.01.1988, passed by the Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab (Annexure P-2). The petitioners filed a petition under Section 42 of the Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Director Consolidation, challenging an order dated 20.10.1986, passed by the Consolidation Officer, Mohali. The Director Consolidation dismissed the petition by holding that as Section 42 of the Act confers an extra-ordinary power upon the State, a litigant cannot file a petition under Section 42 of the Act without availing his remedy of appeal under Section 21 of the Act. A relevant extract from the order passed by the Director Consolidation CWP No.8227 of 1988 -2- reads as follows: - “9. In view of the above discussion, I came to the conclusion that power U/s 42 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act has been conferred on the State Government to entertain petitions where the State Government feels that gross in-justice is likely to be done to the petitioners. It is an extra ordinary remedy provided under the Act to cut short the procedure where the State Government comes to the conclusion that injustice has been done and this provision has been made to provide quick remedy, but it does not confer any right on the litigants to throw away lightly the remedies provided to them under sub-section (3) and sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Act. The question raised before me is not the question of jurisdiction, but that of procedure. I admit that the jurisdiction is conferred on the State Government by Section 42 to entertain petitions without recourse to Section 21, but none of the counsel for the petitioners has been able to show me any ruling where the question of procedure which has been raised before me has been repelled. I find that it would be neither in the interest of quick disposal of the petitions nor in the interest of the litigants to allow the procedure of bye-passing the appellate forum provided under Section 21, because, if such a procedure is allowed, it would result in over- loading the revisional forums and thus delaying the disposal of the cases. Further, it would rah the losing party of the remedy of the second appeal which has been provided by the Legislature under Section 21.” A perusal of the above extract, reveals that the Director Consolidation has confused two issues namely the appellate powers conferred by Section 21 of the Act and the plenary powers conferred by Section 42 of the Act. The plenary powers, conferred by Section 42 of the Act, enable the State, through its delegate, to call for the record of any proceedings or orders passed, at any time. Section 42 of the Act does not prohibit an aggrieved person from approaching the State or its delegate at any time. Section 42 of the Act is not circumscribed in its CWP No.8227 of 1988 -3- scope and ambit by the provisions of Section 21 of the Act. The exercise of power under Section 42 of the Act is not confined, whether by any negative caveat or by intent to only such a person as has availed a remedy of appeal under Section 21 of the Act. The plenary powers, conferred by Section 42 of the Act are wide enough as to take within their ambit, in a suitable case, the obligation to examine the legality and correctness of any order or proceedings under the Act. A word of caution, may however be added. The power under Section 42 of the Act is discretionary and can only be exercised in exceptional circumstances and if invoked within reasonable time. In view of a fundamental error of jurisdiction committed by the Director Consolidation, the writ petition is allowed, the order passed by the Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Director Land Records Jalandhar, to decide the petition filed by the petitioners afresh and in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Director Land Records, Jalandhar, on 04.05.2011. 18.03.2011 [ RAJIVE BHALLA ] shamsher JUDGE CWP No.8227 of 1988 -4-