CWP No. 8541 of 1990 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 8541 of 1990 Date of Decision: November 30, 2010 Ujaggar Singh and others ...... Petitioners Versus The Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. Balbir Singh, Advocate for Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate for the petitioners. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This petition has been filed against orders of the Consolidation Authorities whereby partition of the bachat land has taken place. Against the earlier partition order the private respondent filed an appeal claiming that as per the scheme his Kurra should have been allotted adjacent to his father's. This appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Consolidation Officer who passed order Annexure P-2. From order Annexure P-2 it was seen that the Consolidation Officer heard all the land owners who had appeared before him and as far as possible their concerns had been kept in mind. It is only in the cases of those land owners who did not appear before the Consolidation Officer that some marginal changes CWP No. 8541 of 1990 2 were made in their entitlement. It was those persons who filed a revision and, the same being dismissed are before this Court. Main argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were never served to appear before the Consolidation Officer. In my opinion this argument cannot be accepted considering the presence before the Consolidation Officer. It would be seen that a large number of villagers appeared before the Consolidation Officer. It is, therefore, not possible to come to the conclusion that some persons were not served or they did not know about the proceedings. This further assumes importance if one analyses the changes made in the partition. It would be seen from the order Annexure P-2 that by and large there are marginal changes in the allotment. The orders do not reveal any apparent arbitrariness or palpable perversity. Consequently this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE November 30, 2010 sunita