C.W.P No. 2449 of 1987 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 2449 of 1987 (O&M) Date of decision : September 09, 2010 Sheo Ram, ...... Petitioner, v. The Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana Chandigarh and others, ...... Respondents. *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. R.S.Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Atul Gaur, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. *** 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 orders of the Consolidation Authorities. The grouse of the petitioner relates to three numbers viz 646/279, 647/279 and 644/278. With regard to first two numbers, the appellate as well as the revisional authorities have held that the petitioner has been given more than 95% of the area. It has further been held that as regards the remaining 5% area, such discrepancy/give and take is inevitable in consolidation proceedings. C.W.P No. 2449 of 1987 (O&M) ::2:: Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that respondent No.5 had no land in Khasra Nos. 646/279 and 647/279 prior to consolidation and, therefore, he could not have been given any land in these two khasra numbers. In my opinion, once it is not disputed that there is a discrepancy of only 5% and a period of 32 years has elapsed, even if this discrepancy exists it would not justify interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As regards khasra No.644/278, the consistent stand of the petitioner has been that Tatima has been wrongly prepared after taking into consideration mutation No.738, dated 6.7.1978. The grouse is that this mutation was subsequent to the repartition which took place in 1977 and, thus, could not be considered. The second grouse is that the Tatima was prepared without taking into consideration the actual position on the site. Even though this grouse may not be groundless, I find that as far as this grievance of the petitioner is concerned, the person who had been benefitted from that was Gulab Singh son of Dhanna. However, this Gulab Singh son of Dhanna is not a party before this Court. In the circumstances, no order can be passed against him. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main petition has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) September 09, 2010. JUDGE `kk'