IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 6 of 2002 Date of decision: 19.6.2008 Rohli Petitioner. Versus Director of Consolidation and others Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, Advocate. For respondent No.1: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. Advocate General. For respondent No. 2 & 3. Mr. Balwant Malhotra, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (oral) This petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the learned Director of Consolidation of Holdings, H.P. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:- “The case came up for the final hearing today in the presence of S/Sh.Dandu Ram G.P.A for the petitioner, Rohli respondent. I have heard the parties at length and perused the records carefully. The perusal of the record shows that the land under dispute has been sold by the respondent to some other person. The person who has purchased the land is required to be made as a necessary party and who has purchased the land should have been heard. Therefore, the case is adjourned for next date, but the parties prayed 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? that their case may be sent to the C.O. for decision as, it is very difficult to the parties to come Shimla again and again. Hence, on the request of the parties the case is remanded to the C.O. Bilaspur with the directions that all the objections of the petitioner be decided on merit keeping in view the provision of scheme after hearing all the necessary parties on the spot. The petitioners will implead the necessary party before C.O. The parties to maintain status quo during the presence of the case before C.O.” A perusal of this order shows that the learned Director Consolidation has dealt with the matter in a very perfunctory manner showing total lack of awareness of judicial norms. The order is in total violation of the well settled canons of deciding revision petition. In the first part of the order it is noted that the respondent Rohli has sold the land to some other person and that the said person is a necessary party and therefore, the case is adjourned to the next date. After recording this, the Director, Consolidation of Holdings states that both the parties pray that it is difficult for them to come to Shimla and therefore, the matter may be remanded. He does not set-aside the order, which is under challenge but straight-way remanded the case. This he could not have done. His order virtually amounts to setting aside the order under challenge before him without assigning any reasons for the same. An order which was passed by a judicial authority cannot be set-aside only because both the parties consent to setting aside the order especially in a revision petition. The revisional authority must satisfy itself that the order is illegal and only then can set-aside the order. Therefore, on this short ground, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the learned Director, Consolidation of Holdings, is totally illegal and liable to be set-aside. It has also been contended on behalf of the petitioner that in fact petitioner Rohli was never present. I have perused the file of the Director Consolidation and I find that the notice sent to petitioner Rohli was not served and was received back unserved. In such circumstances, the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, should have satisfied himself that the person appearing before him was in fact Rohli. Further, in case any order was to be passed with the consent of the parties, the statements of the parties to this effect should also have been recorded. Nothing of this sort has been done. Time and again, this Court has noticed that Administrative Officers are very lax in the performance of their judicial function. This case also clearly shows how the Officer has shown total lack of judicial knowledge while dealing with the matter. In view of the above discussion, the order of the learned Director of Consolidation of Holdings is set aside. The matter is remanded to him. He shall again register the case on its original number. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Director Consolidation of Holdings on 5th August, 2008. If the parties so request and the Director is going on tour to Mandi, he may fix the case at Mandi in the interest of the parties. However, he shall make an endeavour to decide the matter at the earliest and in any event not later than 31st December, 2008. This Court has refrained from making any observation on the merits of the case. The Director, Consolidation of Holdings, shall decide the case strictly on its own merits, without being influenced by anything which has been stated in this order. 19th June, 2008 (Deepak Gupta), J. ™