LPA No. 105 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No. 105 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.01.2010 Jai Chand ....Appellant. Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh Present: Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Ritu Bahri, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. Mr. Gurmel Singh, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. Ajit Sihag, Advocate for respondent No.5. ... Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. (Oral). 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition of the appellant against grievance that as a result of re-consolidation, house of the petitioner is sought to be demolished. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent took a stand before the learned Single Judge that as per demarcation, land allotted prior to consolidation was not available with the appellant. 2. Learned Single Judge held that the remedy of the petitioner was LPA No. 105 of 2009 2 to approach the concerned authority against re-consolidation in the year 1988, and the petitioner failed to file an affidavit that he had constructed a house. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that against re- consolidation in the year 1988, the appellant had earlier moved an application, which was decided vide order dated 5.12.2000, noticing that house of the appellant had already been constructed and more land as sought by the appellant was not given. Thereafter, on an application of the contesting respondent, land which was allotted to the appellant has been given to the said respondent vide order dated 30.10.2008 Annexure P-3, which amounts to disturbing his house and the application filed by the appellant has been dismissed vide order of same date Annexure P-4. These facts have not been considered by learned Single Judge. 5. While issuing notice, status quo with regard to house was granted and by an order dated 11.5.2009, following statement of the appellant was recorded:- “Counsel for the appellant submits that he does not wish to claim additional area due to shortfall in consolidation proceedings. Learned counsel, however, submits that the appellant has constructed a house and portion of the house falls in the alleged path. Learned counsel further submits that a three karam wide path already exists which is being used by the inhabitants. It is further stated by the counsel that both the paths are situated in the land belonging to the appellant. The appellant is directed to file an affidavit to the LPA No. 105 of 2009 3 aforesaid contention and the respondents may file a counter in case the averments are false. The needful be done within two weeks from today.” 6. Accordingly, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the appellant. 7. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent is unable to dispute that house stands constructed as noted in order dated 5.12.2000 and no reason has been assigned for passing impugned orders which affect the house constructed long ago. 8. Thus, it is clear that house of the appellant existed after 1988 consolidation and in the order dated 5.12.2000, only prayer for additional land was declined. Orders passed in the year 2008 (Annexures P-3 and P-4) on the application of the appellant and the contesting respondent resulted in depriving the appellant of the house, which has been in existence even after re-consolidation. This cannot be held to be valid. Learned Single Judge has not referred to the said orders Accordingly, we direct that the house of the appellant, which has been in existence as noticed in the order dated 5.12.2000, will not be disturbed. The impugned order will stand modified accordingly. 8. The appeal is disposed of. ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge ( Alok Singh ) Judge 19.01.2010 sk.