C.W.P.No.14454 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.14454 of 2008 Date of Decision 2.12.2009 Ishwar Singh and others ........ Petitioners Versus Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana and others ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr.Ram Tilak Redhu, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Sukant Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.1. Mr.Mani Ram Verma, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (ORAL) The petitioners have approached this Court by way of instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, impugning the order dated 6.5.1975 (Annexure-P1) passed by respondent No.1. On 18.12.2008, the writ petition came up for motion hearing and it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order dated 6.5.1975 (Annexure-P1) was not in existence at all and demolition of the structure erected by the petitioners on the land in question was carried on the basis of a non-existent order. In response thereto, the learned counsel for the State has produced the original file and order dated 6.5.1975 (Annexure-P1) passed by respondent No.1. Further, a perusal of the order dated 6.5.1975, clearly shows that the personal service was effected upon the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners, i.e. Darya Singh their father, on 19.3.1975, but he chose not to appear on the said C.W.P.No.14454 of 2008 -2- date. It was thereafter, that fresh notice was sent to him by a registered letter as well as through revenue agencies, which was returned by the postal authorities with the report that the addressee had refused to receive the summons. It was also reported by the patwari that Darya Singh refused to accept the notice. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to give any satisfactory explanation for not approaching the Court earlier. In view of the above, the instant petition cannot be entertained after a period of 33 years when no satisfactory explanation has been furnished for this colossal delay. Accordingly, this court is satisfied that no ground for its interference is made out in writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. December 2, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) rishu JUDGE