IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 20485 of 2008 Date of Decision: November 17, 2011 Kulwant Singh and another …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH. Present: Mr. Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Manohar Lall, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 13 and 14. ***** Paramjeet Singh, J. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging order dated 03.09.2008 (Annexure P/5) passed by respondent No.2 – Director Land Record, Punjab (exercising the powers under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) whereby the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 42 of the Act has been dismissed. CWP No. 20485 of 2008 The case of the petitioners is that they were owner, as well as, co-sharers in Khasra No. 236, Ahata Chah before consolidation. In place of that number, new khasra No. 52//26 (1-2) has been carved out and the petitioners have 1/8th share in the said khasra number. But due to the mistake of the consolidation department, names of Karnail Singh who was the father of petitioner No.1 – Kulwant Singh and Harbhajan Singh, who was the father of petitioner No.2 – Gurdev Singh were deleted in the Misal Hiqiat. Instead of that, names of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in the present writ petition) were recorded. It is also mentioned that the petitioners have filed petition under Section 42 of the Act, but the same was withdrawn being incomplete. Thereafter, fresh petition under Section 42 of the Act has been filed to delete the names of the respondents and to incorporate the names of the petitioners along with the other co-sharers in khasra No. 52//26 (1-2). We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with the petition. In the present case, the petitioners did not produce any Naksha Hakdaran, Fard indicating the shares in the well and copy of Scheme Istemal, as such, they failed to prove before the Director in which part of the land was the “well”. The Director Land Record had recorded a finding that consolidation proceedings were carried out in the village in the year 1960-61. The petitioners have not given any reason to explain the delay of about 47 years from the date of consolidation. As such, the petition was dismissed by the Director as time barred, as well as, recorded a finding to the effect that they have failed to prove 2 CWP No. 20485 of 2008 their case. The Director had dismissed the petition of the petitioners that after 47 years such application could not be entertained. 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 petitioners after more than 47 years, with the prayer for making correction in the revenue entries, besides this, the petitioners have failed to prove their case. Therefore, in our opinion, respondent No.2 – Director Land Record, Punjab has rightly rejected the application of the 3 CWP No. 20485 of 2008 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