C.W.P No. 3482 of 1987 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 3482 of 1987 (O&M) Date of decision : September 30, 2010 Jaswant Kaur, ...... Petitioner v. Addl. Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab and others, ...... Respondents *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Amarjit Markan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.L.Saini, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 (Oral) This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 8.1.1987 (Annexure P-8) whereby an application for correction filed by the private respondents after more than three decades was allowed. Undisputedly, consolidation proceedings took place in the village of the parties in the year 1952-53. In 1986, the private respondents filed a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short “the C.W.P No. 3482 of 1987 (O&M) ::2:: Act”), before the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings taking a plea that as per resolution No.52/1, they were entitled to 4 marla of Ruri land, whereas the petitioner was entitled for only 2 marla of land but by way of a mistake in the Khatauni Paimaish, the position was reversed and they were shown to have allotted only 2 marla of land, while the petitioner was shown to have allotted 4 marla of land. The Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings allowed the said petition, vide the impugned order on the strength of the resolution. In the present writ petition, various grounds have been taken. Counsel for the petitioner has particularly drawn my attention to paragraph 7(a) of the writ petition wherein he has specifically averred that neither the private respondents had explained the huge delay nor the Additional Director Consolidation had condoned it. In reply to this averment, in the written statement it has been baldly stated that such a mistake can be corrected at any time. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Gram Panchayat Kakran vs Addl. Director of Consolidation and another, 1997 JT(8) 430, and Gram Panchayat of village Ban Bhaura, Tehsil Malerkotla vs Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, 2004(3) RCR (Civil) 298, wherein it has been held that even though where a question of title is raised under Section 42 of the Act, and the same is held to be not defeated on the ground of limitation yet it is mandatory to pass an order condoning the delay. Counsel for the private respondents has not been able to cite any contrary judgment. Thus, it has to be held that in the application for correction neither any explanation was given for the huge delay of more C.W.P No. 3482 of 1987 (O&M) ::3:: than three decades nor any order was passed condoning the delay. It must also be mentioned here that at the time when this writ petition was admitted, operation of the impugned order was stayed. Consequently, apart from other things, it would be seen that the allotment of 4 marla of Ruri land to the petitioner has been in place for the last almost 60 years. In this view of the matter, since counsel for the respondents has not been able to show that delay had been condoned or indeed that any explanation was given for the delay, this writ petition has to be allowed. Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed and the order 8.1.1987 (Annexure P-8) is set aside. No order as to costs. As the main petition has since been allowed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) September 30, 2010. JUDGE `kk'