Jagdish Chand and Others vs Director Consolidation and Others

Deepak Gupta, J.—This petition is directed against the order dated 10.6.2004 passed by the Director of Consolidation whereby he partly set-aside the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 4.7.2002 and reduced the land granted to the Petitioner having frontage on the road in khasra No. 337 from 30 meters to 22 meters.

The dispute between the parties is mainly with regard to the area allotted to them having frontage on the road since this area is very valuable. It may be pertinent to mention that 2 Sh. Hiru Ram, the original Petitioner (since deceased) was granted only 18 meters frontage on the road by the Consolidation Officer. He filed a Revision Petition before the Director, Consolidation and Holdings which was numbered as case No. 215 of 1994 in which he claimed that he had 1/3rd share in the property and therefore was entitled to 21.3 meters frontage on the road whereas only 18 meters had been granted to him and this shortfall be made good. This petition was allowed by the Director of Consolidation on 19.7.2001 and the matter was remanded to the Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer held that Hiru Ram had half share in the land and held him entitled to 32 meters out of the total frontage of 64 meters and therefore in addition to the 18 meters already granted to him 12 more meters frontage was granted out of khasra No. 337.

This order was challenged by Parkash Chand by filing a Revision Petition No. 171 of 2003 in December, 2003. This petition has been allowed by the impugned order and the frontage granted 3 to Hiru Ram has been reduced from 30 meters to 22 meters.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the original Civil Revision of Hiru wherein he himself had claimed 21.3 meters on the road side and had clearly stated that he had only 1/3rd share in the entire land. The Consolidation Officer was totally wrong in holding that Hiru had half share in the land. This error has rightly been rectified by the Director of Consolidation and in fact now the Petitioner has been granted 22 meters frontage which is more than 21.3 meters claimed by them in the original Revision Petition.

Sh. Neel Kamal Sharma has vehemently argued that the revision petition was miserably time barred and should not have been entertained.

There is no doubt that the petition has been filed after more than one year and six months. The Act, however, does not prescribe any period of limitation and in the present case where gross illegality had been committed by the Consolidation Officer, the Director of 4 Consolidation was fully justified in set-aside the order of the Consolidation Officer. I therefore, find no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed.

No costs.