IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.3575 of 2011 and CWP No.466 of 1987 Date of decision: 8.7.2011 Harbans Singh and another ......Petitioner(s) Versus The Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab Chandigarh and another ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Sandeep Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. The present writ petition had been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the order dated 18.7.1986 of the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab whereby he has ordered amendment in the records by giving an independent passage ( measuring 2 x 3 feet) to Khasra No.80 as per the original mussavi. This writ petition pertains to the year 1987. On listing of the case for regular hearing on many dates, it was noticed that no one was representing the petitioners. On 11.11.2010 the following order was passed:- “This petition has been filed by Sh.B.S.Shant, Advocate who has since passed away. Let notices be issued to the petitioners as provided under Rule 8, Chapter 3A, Volume V of the Rules and Orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court for 11.1.2011.” Thereafter, on 28.1.2011, this writ petition was dismissed for non prosecution. The order reads thus:- “In this case the counsel representing the petitioners had died, therefore actual date notices were sent to the petitioners. As per the office report, petitioner No.1 stands CM No.3575 of 2011 and CWP No.466 of 1987 -2- served and petitioner Mo.2 has died. However, no one has come forward to pursue this petition. It seems that the petitioners are not interested in pursuing this petition. Dismissed for non prosecution.” The instant application has been filed by petitioner No.1 for recalling of the aforesaid order dated 28.1.2011. I have perused the impugned order dated 18.7.1986 which shows that the Director of Consolidation had passed the order of correction in the consolidation record after consulting the original mussavi in which an independent passage was provided to Khasra No.80 belonging to respondent- Mehar Singh. It may also be noticed at this stage that vide impugned order the competent Authority has also observed that if there is any short fall in the entitlement of the ownership of Khasra No.85 belonging to the petitioners, the same shall be compensated. In this view of the matter, no grievance can be raised by the petitioners even on merits of the case. A perusal of the writ petition would show that only ground raised to quash the aforesaid order is on the ground of delay. However, it is well settled that under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act, the correction in the records of the consolidation can be made at any time. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I find no ground to recall my order dated 28.1.2011. Dismissed. July 8, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE