CWP No.160 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.160 of 1989 Date of decision: February 08, 2011 Kushal Singh alias Khushia and another .....Petitoners VERSUS State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: Mr K.S.Cheema, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms Harman Sullar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. None for respondent No.4. <><><><> 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? T.P.S.MANN, J. (Oral): The order (Annexure P-1) passed by the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Chandigarh-respondent No.2 on 27.10.1988, has been challenged by the petitioners by filing the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. While passing the impugned order, learned Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab condoned the delay in filing of the application by respondent No.4 under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 and CWP No.160 of 1989 -1- after accepting the same, directed that Killa No.38//21/1 be given to respondent No.4 by making slight change in the tak of the parties after holding that when the Consolidation Officer, Hoshiarpur-respondent No.3 had decided the case on 13.12.1985, neither respondent No.4 was present, nor his presence had been recorded. A perusal of order dated 13.12.1985 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Consolidation Officer, Hoshiarpur did make a mention that apart from others, respondent No.4 Sansar Singh was present. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is only one Sansar Singh in village Singriwala and he is son of Gurdas Singh. Said Sansar Singh was present at the time of passing of the order dated 13.12.1985 but his presence was incorrectly recorded as 'Sansar Singh son of Gurcharan Singh'. On the last date of hearing, Mr Pankaj Bali, Advocate, representing respondent No.4, was not present and in the interest of justice, the matter was adjourned for today. The Office was directed to inform Mr Pankaj Bali, Advocate about the date fixed. As per the Office report, Mr Pankaj Bali, Advocate, has been duly informed but despite the same, he has not put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.4. To the specific stand taken by the petitioners in para 5 of the writ petition, respondent No.4 has stated in his written statement that neither any notice requiring his appearance before the Consolidation Officer was received nor he was present before him. However, he did not deny the other averments made in para 5 of the writ petition that there is only one Sansar Singh son of Gurdas Singh in the entire village. CWP No.160 of 1989 -1- In view of the above, learned Additional Director while passing the impugned order dated 27.10.1988 (Annexure P-1) was not correct in saying that respondent No.4 was not present at the time of passing of order dated 13.12.1985 by the Consolidation Officer, Hoshiarpur. Resultantly, the petition is accepted, the impugned order dated 27.10.1988 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Additional Director-respondent No.2 is set aside while order dated 13.12.1985 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Consolidation Officer, Hoshiarpur-respondent No.3 is restored. No order as to costs. (T.P.S.MANN) February 08, 2011 JUDGE Pds.