CWP No. 9596 of 1989 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CWP No. 9596 of 1989(O&M) Date of Decision: 28.07.2010 Sunam Dass ....Petitioner Versus Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. R.M. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sushma Chopra, Addl. A.G. Haryana for the State. Mr. S.D. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anupam Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. ... Alok Singh, J. Petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugning order dated 28.2.1989 passed by the Senior Director, Consolidation, Rohtak, Haryana, in Case No.42/89. Brief facts of the present case are that consolidation operation was carried out in the village in question in 1954. Respondent – Wakf Board was landholder of 2 Bighas 17 Biswas of the agricultural land. In the consolidation operation, the Wakf Board was found to be landholder of 16 CWP No. 9596 of 1989 2 marlas and the rest of the land beyond 16 marlas, was found to be in possession of different persons. The Wakf Board applied on 12.1.1989, after almost 35 years, before the Director, Consolidation to correct the record and make good entire area of 2 Bighas and 17 Biswas in the possession and title of the Wakf Board. Application of the Wakf Board - respondent was allowed vide the impugned order dated 28.2.1989. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that after more than 35 years, it was not open for the Director, Consolidation to pass the impugned order and to hold the Wakf Board entitled for the land measuring 2 Bighas 17 Biswas. He further argued that admittedly other persons were found in possession of the area beyond 16 marlas and the Wakf Board was found in possession of 16 marlas to which the Wakf Board never objected for 35 years. Now the claim of the Wakf Board was hopelessly time-barred and barred by principle of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence. In reply to the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.D. Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Anupam Sharma, appearing for the respondents argued that there is no limitation prescribed under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and any mistake in the revenue record can be corrected at any stage. In Gram Panchayat, Kakran Vs. Additional Director of Consolidation, reported in 1997(2) PLJ 375, Hon’ble the Apex Court in paragraph 4 has held as under: - “This, however, cannot be understood as enabling the party which is aggrieved by the scheme or by repartition to make an CWP No. 9596 of 1989 3 application under Section 42 after an unreasonably long lapse of time. Even where no period of limitation is prescribed, the party aggrieved is required to move the appropriate authority for relief within a reasonable time.” From the dictum of the Apex Court judgement in the aforesaid case, it can safely be said that an application under Section 42 of the Act should be moved within a reasonable time and there should not be any unreasonable long lapse of time. In the present case, application was moved almost after 35 years of the consolidation operation. It has not been proved on record that the Wakf Board remained in possession of the entire land owned by it prior to the consolidation operation. To the contrary, this is admitted to both the parties that different persons including the petitioner remained in possession of the land beyond 6 marla. If the Wakf Board was not in possession over the land more than 16 marlas for 35 years, then it cannot be said that the Wakf Board was not aware about the mistake in the record. If the Wakf Board did not take any action for a long period of 35 years, then after 35 years, the Wakf Board cannot be permitted to move application under Section 42 of the Act and action of the Wakf Board would be deemed to be barred by the principle of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence. In view of the above, impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law, which is liable to be set aside. Petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 28.2.1989 is quashed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge 28.07.2010 sk.