CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5215 OF 1983 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 15, 2009 Kishori Lal and others .....Petitioners VERSUS The Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, Pb., Chandigarh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. G. S. Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. P. C. Goyal, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for the State. None for other respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J.(ORAL) Through the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged, order Annexure P-10 passed by the Additional Director, in exercise of his powers under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short, “the Act”). One Wazira owned 4 Kanals 17 Marlas of land. He left behind four sons, one of which was Hans Raj. Kishori Lal is the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5215 OF 1983 :{ 2 }: grand son of Hans Raj through his daughter and accordingly is entitled to 1/4th share of the land in dispute. During consolidation, Kishori Lal filed an application before the Consolidation Officer, praying that his 1/4th share be separated from the joint Khata. This prayer was granted on 27.10.1964 by the Consolidation Officer. Much after that, in the year 1983, Usha Devi and others moved an application before the Additional Director, Consolidation, impugning this order, separating the share of Kishori Lal on the ground that they were not heard while the 1/4th share of Kishori Lal was separated. The Director, Consolidation, allowed the prayer of Usha Devi and others and set-aside the order dated 27.10.1964 primarily on the ground that while passing the said order, the Consolidation Officer had not heard Usha Devi and others and hence this order was in violation of principles of natural justice on that count. Petitioner, Kishori Lal and others have now impugned the said order through the present writ petition. It may need a notice that petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are the ones who have purchased this 1/4th share from Kishori Lal on 15.7.1983. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Director was not competent to re-open this case, after 19 years. Counsel has relied upon certain precedents to show that power under Section 42 of the Act can not be exercised after lapse of long time. In addition, counsel has drawn my attention to Annexure P-11, which is his own affidavit, to show that he had made number of submissions before the Director, which have not been considered at all. The points which the counsel had raised on behalf of the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5215 OF 1983 :{ 3 }: petitioners are mentioned in Para 4, which are as under:- “i. Consolidation took place in 1965 and partition took place in 1965. Hussain Chand is continuing in possession on the land in dispute since then. He is barred from filing the petition. ii. The petition u/s 42 of the Act is barred by time having been filed after about 19 years of the actual partition. iii. Shrimati Usha Devi had no right to file the petition as she is neither a right holder nor had power of attorney. iv.Janak Raj wanted to make a statement but he was not allowed to do so.” A perusal of the impugned order would show that these aspects, as submitted before the Director, were not considered by him while passing the impugned order. The impugned order may, thus, suffer from non-application of mind. Since the affidavit is of a counsel, who had appeared before the Director, it can not be doubted. The impugned order, as such, may call for interference. It would be, thus, appropriate to remand this case back to the Director/any competent authority to re-consider the entire issue in the light of pleadings that were made before him at the time of passing of the order. It is so ordered. It is made clear that no fresh pleadings will be allowed to be made . The matter will be heard only on the grounds which were raised and agitated at the time of passing of the impugned order. Needless to mention that the competent authority would hear the parties and then pass an order afresh. Since no opinion has been expressed on merits, the competent authority will CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5215 OF 1983 :{ 4 }: be at liberty to pass any appropriate order in accordance with law. The parties may appear before the competent authority on 2.3.2009. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. January 15,2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE