C.W.P No. 2175 of 1987 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 2175 of 1987 (O&M) Date of decision : August 30, 2010 Gurdwara Sahibji Butala, Distt. Kapurthala and another, ...... Petitioners v. The Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings & another ...... Respondents *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Harminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S.Gill, DAG Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. Gur Rattan Pal Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** 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 of the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, dated 13.1.1987 (Annexure P-2) whereby, on an application of respondent No.2 under Section 42 of the Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, the case was remanded back to the Consolidation C.W.P No. 2175 of 1987 (O&M) ::2:: Officer with a direction to reconsider the case of the said respondent to examine whether his `tak' could be adjusted along with the `tak' of his grand father. It is not disputed that the draft scheme was confirmed as far back as 20.4.1978. It is also not disputed that now for the last 32 years, parties have continued in possession of the land as per the confirmed scheme (it may be mentioned that the operation of the impugned order had been stayed by this Court). The position which, thus, emerges is that now parties have remained in settled possession of the land for the last 32 years. In all probability, the grand father of respondent No.2 may also have died. It is not even clear whether as a result of subsequent changes in ownership on account of inheritance or otherwise, respondent No.2 would have any benefit of getting his `tak' with that of his grand father. Last but not the least, even though there may be no strict period of limitation provided for an application, yet it cannot be lost sight of that in the present case, the application was filed after a period of seven years. Keeping in view all the facts mentioned above, in my opinion it would not be in the interest of justice to unsettle this settled position. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order (Annexure P-2) is set aside. There shall be 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 ) August 30, 2010. JUDGE `kk'