Limitation for consolidation revisions cannot be extended by implication, and reasonable time depends on the facts.

Rule 18's six-month limitation, confined to applications under Section 42 against an order, could not be extended by implication to revisions challenging confirmation of a consolidation scheme or repartition, so that limitation did not apply. Where no fixed period is prescribed, the revisional power must be exercised within a reasonable time assessed on the facts, and the delay here was adequately explained. The record also did not show that the Director's impugned order was a review of an earlier final order on the same subject, so the objection to lack of review power failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the six-month limitation in Rule 18 applied to a revision under Section 42 challenging confirmation of a consolidation scheme or repartition; (ii) whether, in the absence of a fixed limitation, the revision was barred for not being filed within a reasonable time; (iii) whether the Director's order amounted to an impermissible review of an earlier order.

Issue (i): Whether the six-month limitation in Rule 18 applied to a revision under Section 42 challenging confirmation of a consolidation scheme or repartition

Analysis: Section 42 separately refers to an order passed, a scheme prepared or confirmed, and repartition made, whereas Rule 18 speaks only of an application under Section 42 filed against an order. The statutory scheme distinguishes between orders on the one hand and confirmation or repartition proceedings on the other. The omission in Rule 18 to mention scheme confirmation or repartition was treated as deliberate, and the rule was construed according to its plain language.

Conclusion: The six-month limitation in Rule 18 did not apply to a revision challenging confirmation of a scheme or repartition under Section 42.

Issue (ii): Whether, in the absence of a fixed limitation, the revision was barred for not being filed within a reasonable time

Analysis: Where no specific period of limitation is prescribed, the power under Section 42 must be exercised within a reasonable time, but no rigid outer limit can be fixed. Reasonableness depends on the facts, including when the affected party acquired knowledge and whether there was explanation for the delay. On the facts, the application was moved soon after the new Sarpanch came into office and the delay was found adequately explained.

Conclusion: The revision was not barred as having been filed beyond a reasonable time.

Issue (iii): Whether the Director's order amounted to an impermissible review of an earlier order

Analysis: The record did not establish that the impugned order was a review of an earlier final order on the same subject matter. In the absence of material showing a prior decision being reconsidered on the same issue, the objection that the Director lacked review power could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The Director's order was not shown to be an impermissible review order.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's interference was unjustified, and the restoration of the Director's order followed from the proper construction of the limitation rule and the revisional power under the consolidation statute.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute distinguishes between orders and other consolidation actions such as scheme confirmation or repartition, a limitation rule confined to applications against orders cannot be extended by implication to those other actions, and in the absence of a fixed period the revisional power must be exercised within a reasonable time on the facts of each case.

---