IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 18753 of 2009 Date of Decision: December 07, 2011 Harbans Singh ….Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH. Present: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Manohar Lall, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Prem Singh Bhango, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 9. Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, Advocate, for respondent No.6. Mr. Som Nath Saini, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 7 and 8. Paramjeet Singh, J. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of order dated 04.03.2009 (Annexure P/2) passed by respondent No.2 – Director, Consolidation/Land Records, Punjab, and for directing respondent No.2 to make correction in mutation No. 123 (Annexure P/8) with regard to the name of Gurcharan Singh son of Mehma etc., in the column of ownership in respect of the property situated in the revenue limits of Village Gazipur, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District Mohali. The brief facts of the case are that Sunder Singh adopted son of Jeona Singh son of Naraina was the owner of land comprising of Khasra No. 6 Min and 7 Min measuring 91 Bighas 7 CWP No.18753 of 2009 Biswas. At the time of consolidation, the entry of the whole area in this khewat, leaving aside of 8 Bighas 5 Biswas in Khasra No. 545, in the ownership column of Khatauni Istemal is in the name of Sunder adopted son of Jeona, in the cultivation column, Gurcharan Singh son of Mehma Singh half share; Dia Ram, Chhotu, Natha sons of Mohkam Singh equal share. In this Khewat, a mere entry of Mutation No. 123 has been made, which has no connection with this change. Vide the said mutation, entry in the cultivation column, name of Gurcharan Singh son of Mehma Singh etc. had been ordered to be made. It is submitted that in the Missal Haqiat, the mutation is not entered in the index. The whole mistake has been committed due to mentioning of Mutation No. 123 in the Khatauni Istemal. The said entry is alleged to be incorrect and had come into being during the consolidation and as such, needs to be corrected. Respondent Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 9 filed a joint written statement stating that Nagina Singh and Mahema Singh were the original owners of the land in dispute, which was being cultivated by Jeona Singh son of Naraiana as Marusi. The ownership right of the total area measuring 91 bighas 7 biswas were transferred in the name of Jeona Singh as Marusi vide mutation No. 59 sanctioned on 30.10.1950 (Annexure P/4). Jeona Singh sold his marusi rights in favour of Daya Ram etc. sons of Mohkam Singh vide registered sale deed dated 07.03.1951 with regard to the land measuring 89 bighas 3 biswas and Mutation No. 104 dated 07.03.1951 (Annexure P/5) was accordingly sanctioned in favour of Daya Ram etc. It is pleaded in the written statement that writ petition is liable to be dismissed since Jeona had already sold his 2 CWP No.18753 of 2009 maursi rights in favour of Daya Ram etc. and Sunder adopted son of Jeona cannot inherit the sold land from Jeona. Sunder adopted son of Jeona had challenged that transaction by way of civil suit filed on 10.06.1952, which was dismissed on 29.12.1952 (Annexure P/6) by the learned Additional Sub Judge Second Class, Rajpura, on the ground that adopted son has no right to contest an alienation made by his father. Sunder inherited the land owned by Jeona vide mutation No. 116 sanctioned on 27.08.1953 (Annexure P/7). Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 has also filed written statement on the identical line. In addition to this, they had taken a preliminary objection that writ petition suffers from delay and laches. Respondent No.6 had also filed written statement stating that present petition has been filed after more than 47 years, as such, is not maintainable. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Admittedly, mutation no. 123 (Annexure P/8) was sanctioned on 16.05.1958 and the sale of marusi right was also challenged by way of Civil Suit by Sunder, father of the petitioner, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 29.12.1952 (Annexure P/6). It was held therein that the suit for cancellation of document is not maintainable. It means that the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioner was fully aware of the facts regarding the sale of mortgagee rights and the mutation was rightly sanctioned on 16.05.1958. The petitioner cannot agitate after more than 53 years of the entry of mutation, since then much water has flown. 3 CWP No.18753 of 2009 Even the consolidation in the village has been finalized in 1960-61 and the missal haqiat (Annexure P/14) was prepared at that time. Reading of Khatauni Paimaish makes it clear that mutation nos. 135, 136, 56, 59, 64, 104 and 123 were very much taken into consideration while preparing the khatauni paimaish of village Gajipur. In the list of owners and proprietors (Annexure P/15), the reference of mutation no. 123 has also been made at serial No.6 with regard to Sunder Singh, father of the petitioner. After appreciation of evidence, the Director, Consolidation/Land Records has recorded a finding that Jeona son of Narina had transferred his marusi rights qua the land in favour of Darbara Singh vide mutation No. 104. Mutation No. 104 has been sanctioned on 07.03.1951 (Annexure P/5) much prior to mutation No. 123 which was subsequently challenged in a civil suit decided on 29.12.1952 and the sale was upheld. Sunder Singh, father of the petitioner, was adopted son of Jeona. So, the petitioner has no concern with the land in question and cannot say that the entry in the cultivation column in the name of Gurcharan Singh etc. is wrong and incorrect. The petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to 1948 Act) suffers from delay and laches. There is a considerable delay. Though specifically there is no limitation for invoking the jurisdiction under Section 42 of 1948 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, 4 CWP No.18753 of 2009 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 under Section 42 of 1948 Act has been filed by the petitioner after more than 53 years, hence, on this ground also, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, in our opinion, respondent No.2 – Director Land Records, Punjab has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner. No ground for interference in the impugned order is made out. Dismissed. ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) JUDGE December 07, 2011 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkd JUDGE 5