Judgment Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. The Gram Panchayat has filed this writ petition to challenge the order dated 30.5.1985 passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jalandhar (respondent No. 1), whereby Kartar Singh (respondent No. 2) has been allotted land in one Tak by getting his land exchanged with the Shamilat Deh belonging to the Grant. Panchayat. 2. It is the case of the petitioner-Gram Panchayat that respondent Nos.2 and 3 were allotted the land in the year 1954 during consolidation proceedings in the village. The drain in question was proposed to be dug in the year 1957 without any objection from the side of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. In the year 1984 respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed an application under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short the Act) for allotment of the land in one Tak, which stood bifurcated with the digging of the drain falling in their fields, by the Government. The said application has been allowed vide the impugned order dated 30.5.1985 and respondent Nos.2 and 3 have been allotted the land on one side of the drain by getting third land exchanged with the Shamilat Deh. 3. It has been contended by Mr. G.S. Grewal, learned Senior Advocate, that respondent Nos.2 and 3 could not be allowed to get exchanged the land with the Panchayat Deh after almost 27 years. Moreover, it has been contended that exchange could not take place without getting approval of the Government and as in the present case no approval from the Government has been sought. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings (respondent No. 1) is vitiated. In support of his contention, Mr. Grewal has relied upon Dhaja Ram and Anr. v. Gram Sabha of village Manana and Ors., 1971 P.L.J. 751; and Gram Panchayat of village Manana v. The State of Haryana and Ors., 1970 P.L.J. 442, wherein it has been held by this Court that Shamlat Deh land cannot be exchanged with the mere consent of the Sarpanch of the Panchayat and the approval of the Government is the sine qua non. It has further been contended by Mr. It has further been contended by Mr. Grewal that respondent Nos.2 and 3 fled the application under Section 42 of the Act in the year 1984 whereas the drain was proposed to be dug in the year 1957, i.e., after 27 years. Thus, it has been contended that the application filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 was barred by limitation and respondent No. 1 could not allow such a belated application. 4. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed written statement and controverted the averments made in the writ petition, it has been contended that the drain was dug in the year 1963 and the land was acquired vide notification dated 28.3.1963 and the respondents had tiled the application (Annexure P1) in the year 1981 and not in the year 1984 unlike the averment made in the writ petition. The said application was allowed by respondent No. 1 on 14.6.1982 and the case was remanded to the Consolidation Officer, Jalandhar, for getting the land consolidated in one Tak. On such direction by the Additional Director, the Consolidation Officer issued notice, to the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and passed the ex parte order on 4.8.1983 when no one appeared on behalf of the Gram Panchayat despite service. It has been alleged in the written statement that the order dated 4.8.1983 passed by the Consolidation Officer has never been challenged by the Gram Panchayat, which has attained finality. 5. It has been contended by Mr. M.L. Sarin, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, that bar of limitation under Rule 18 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949 (for short the Rules) does not apply to those petitions under Section 42 of the Act in which the legality or validity of a scheme prepared or confirmed or repartition made is challenged. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on The Gram Panchayat, Village Kanonda v . Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana, Chandigarh and Ors., A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 763: Jagtar Singh v. Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Jullundur and Anr., (1984)86 P.L.R. 364 (F.B.):A.I.R. 1984 Punjab and Haryana 216; and Gram Panchayat Village Kolar Khurd v. Additional Director Consolidation and Ors., (2001-1)127 P.L.R. 200. 6. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence adduced on record. 7. 6. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence adduced on record. 7. The two-fold contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that: (i) The drain in question was proposed to be dug by the Drainage Department in the year 1957 and respondent No. 2 filed the petition under Section 42 of the Act on 21.4.1984. As such, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner, that the petition under Section 42 filed by respondent No. 2, which was filed after about 27 years of the preparation of the scheme, was hopelessly barred by limitation: and (ii) For getting the Panchayat land exchanged, approval of the Government is the sine qua non. 8. In answer to the first objection, a perusal of the case-file shows that the land of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was acquired vide notification No. 2023/44 dated 28.3.1963 and they filed the application under Section 42 of the Act in the year 1981, i.e., after 18 years, which was decided ex parte by the Additional Director (respondent No. 1) on 14.6.1982 and the case was remanded to the Consolidation Officer with the direction that he should bring the land of the said respondents on one side of the drain. The Consolidation Officer issued notice to the Gram Panchayat on receipt of the remand order from the Additional Director and no one put in appearance on behalf of the Gram Panchayat despite service of the notice. The Consolidation Officer, Jalandhar, carried out the directions of the Additional Director vide order dated 4.8.1983. Thereafter, the petitioner (Grain Panchayat) filed the application under Section 42 of the Act on 21.4.1984, wherein prayer for setting aside the remand order dated 14.6.1982 passed by the Additional Director was challenged. Consequently, the Additional Director (respondent No. 1) set aside the order dated 14.6.1982 and passed the impugned order dated 30.5.1985, whereby he rejected the application of the Gram Panchayat and upheld the order dated 14.6.1982 passed by his predecessor. Consequently, the Additional Director (respondent No. 1) set aside the order dated 14.6.1982 and passed the impugned order dated 30.5.1985, whereby he rejected the application of the Gram Panchayat and upheld the order dated 14.6.1982 passed by his predecessor. Anyhow, it has been held by Hon ble the Supreme Court in The Cram Panchayat, Village Kanonda v. Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana (supra) as well as the Full Bench of this Court in Jagtar Singhs case (supra) that the bar of limitation does not apply to those petitions under Section 42 in which the legality or validity of a scheme prepared or confirmed or repartition made is challenged. In the present case, with the digging of the drain through the fields of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, their consolidated land in one Tak was bifurcated in two parts, which, in a way, amounted to repartition of the land after its allotment to them in the year 1954 in Consolidation Proceedings. In view of the afore-quoted judgments of their Lordship, the period of limitation prescribed under Section 18 of the Act cannot be made applicable to the present case in order to quash the order dated 30.5.1985 passed by respondent No. 1. Moreover, the order dated 4.8.1983 passed by the Consolidation Officer (Annexure R-2/2), whereby the land on one side of the drain has been allotted to respondent Nos. 2 and 3, has nowhere been challenged by the Gram Panchayat. Thus, the said order has attained finality as it remained unchallenged throughout. Thus, there is no force in the first objection raised on behalf of the Government. 9. As regards the second objection to the effect that approval of the Government has not been obtained before exchanging the land of the Gram Panchayat with the land of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, I am of the considered opinion that there is no necessity of seeking approval from the Government in the present case and the facts of the cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be applied to the facts appearing in the present case. Unlike the facts of the said cases, there is no agreement with regard to exchange of the 1 and between t he Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and respondent Nos. 2 and 3. In the present case, respondent Nos. Unlike the facts of the said cases, there is no agreement with regard to exchange of the 1 and between t he Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and respondent Nos. 2 and 3. In the present case, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted application under Section 42 of the Act for getting consolidated their land on one side of the drain dug by the Drainage Department. Their prayer was allowed by the Additional Director vide order dated 14.6.1982, which was challenged by the Gram Panchayat before the same very authority. The Additional Director set aside the ex parte order dated 14.6.1982 passed by his predecessor and passed the impugned order dated 30.5.1985 after hearing the counsel appearing on behalf of the Gram Panchayat, vide which he upheld the order passed by his predecessor. 10. In the light of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. The stay order 28.8.1985 passed by this Court stands vacated.