IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 19352 of 2009 Date of Decision: November 17, 2011 Hardev Singh …Petitioner Versus Director Land Record, Punjab and others. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH. Present: Mr. S.S. Salar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Manohar Lall, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 12 Mr. Jagnahar Singh, Advocate, for Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 4 to 9. None for respondent Nos. 10 and 11. ***** Paramjeet Singh, J. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging order dated 06.05.2009 (Annexure P/9) passed by respondent No.1 – Director Land Records, Punjab, Jalandhar (exercising the powers under Section 42 of the East Punjab CWP No. 19352 of 2009 Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 42 of the Act for correction of shares wrongly recorded in the revenue record showing the land as a `joint’ has been dismissed. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is the son of Phuman Singh son of Kirpa Singh. Phuman Singh and Inder Singh were the brothers. They were recorded to be the owner of ½ share each along with others jointly. During the consolidation proceedings in the year 1952, all the co- sharers had decided to get their shares separated. So, separate resolutions were passed for allotment of separate shares. Even the Kami beshi (deficient and excess) statement was also prepared. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that now on the inspection of the record, mistake committed by the officials of the Consolidation Department has come to the notice of the petitioner, hence, he has filed the present petition. Admittedly, the consolidation took place in the year 1952 and the petition under Section 42 of the Act has been filed after a long delay of 56 years. There is no explanation forthcoming for this inordinate delay in filing the petition. As such, the petition was dismissed by respondent No.1 exercising the power under Section 42 of the Act being time barred. It is also mentioned in order dated 06.05.2009 (Annexure P/9) that the petitioner had sold his entire share from the joint khata by different registered sale deeds and the petitioner was fully aware of the facts. It is not 2 CWP No. 19352 of 2009 disputed that the alleged incorrect entries have occurred in the year 1962 during the time of consolidation. The petition under Section 42 of the Act had been filed after a long delay of more than 56 years. Though specifically there is no limitation for invoking the jurisdiction under Section 42 of the Act, but it has been held by the Apex Court in the matter of Gram Panchayat, Kakran vs. Additional Director of Consolidation reported in 1997(8) SCC 484, and also held by this Court in the matter of Dalbara Singh and others vs. The Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jullunder and another, reported in 2004(2) PLR 603 that an application under Section 42 of the Act is to be filed within a reasonable time. The decision of this Court in the matter of Dalbra Singh’s case (supra), has been consistently followed by this Court in various cases. In this regard, reference can be made to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Jaswinder Kaur v. Additional Director, Consolidation, 2003 (2) PLR 160 and Dalbara Singh's case (supra), wherein an application/ petition filed after a long period for providing path has been held to be not maintainable and the order passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, granting such relief after a long time, without any reasonable explanation, was set aside and it was held that the application was not maintainable being time barred. In the instant case also, the application was filed by the petitioner after more than 56 years for correcting the revenue record. Admittedly, the petitioner had already sold his entire share to various persons from the joint khata by different sale deeds, and 3 CWP No. 19352 of 2009 as such, the petitioner can not say that he was not aware of the entries in the revenue record with respect to his share. Therefore, in our opinion, respondent No.1 – Director Land Record, Punjab has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner. No ground for interference in the impugned order is made out. Dismissed. ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) JUDGE November 17, 2011 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkd JUDGE 4