IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.650 of 1989 Date of decision: 06.05.2010 Ajit Singh ….Petitioner versus The Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Chandigarh, at SAS Nagar (Mohali), District Ropar and others. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ------ Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Manohar Lall, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. ---- 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? ----- K.Kannan, J (Oral) 1. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. The case is of the year, 1989 and I have, therefore, proceeded to disposed of the case on the basis of the records and with the able assistance of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State-Mr. Manohar Lall. 2. The petition filed under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act of 1948. The authority has thought it fit to allow the application on his observation that the application was genuine and the restoration by itself would not affect the rights of the party in any way. A decision rendered by a competent authority in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in him to give a fair contest between parties, is not a decision which would Civil Writ Petition No.650 of 1989 - 2 - amenable for an interference in a writ petition unless the order was patently illegal or without authority. There is no scope for interference in the impugned order and the writ petition is dismissed. The competent authority shall adjudicate on the merits between parties as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 6 months having regard to the fact that the case is old one and it has been held up by the long pendency of the case before this Court. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 06.05.2010 sanjeev