IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 8105 of 1988. Date of Decision : 8.12.2010. Kalawanti ......Petitioner Versus The Director, Consolidation of Holdings& others ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate & Mr. Arun Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl. AG, Punjab, for the respondent-State. Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate, for respondents No.4 and 5. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) Challenge is to the orders (i) dated July 21st, 1986 (Annexure P-4) passed by Consolidation Officer, Ropar at Mohali (for short 'the CO'); (ii) dated March 6th, 1987 (Annexure P-5) of Settlement Officer, Punjab, Jalandhar (for short 'the SO') and; (iii) dated January 11th, 1988 (Annexure P-6) passed by Director of Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab (for short 'the DCH'). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that petitioner filed an application under Section 42 and 43-A of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 before the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings Punjab, Chandigarh praying that the deficiency of land allotted to her during consolidation be made good in view of the report of Kanungo dated January 11th, 1985 (Annexure P-2). The application was remanded by Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings by his order dated April 4th, 1984 to the CO with a direction to visit the spot and in case of any deficiency, the same be made good. The CO by order dated July 21st, 1986 (Annexure P-4) made the deficiency good CWP No. 8105 of 1988. (2) but still the petitioner was not satisfied. She preferred an appeal before the SO as provided under Section 21(3) of the Act and by impugned order dated March 6th, 1987 (Annexure P-5), the SO dismissed the appeal . Against the said orders of the authorities, the petitioner filed appeal under Section 21(4) of the Act before the DCH. The DCH by order dated January 11th, 1988 (Annexure P-6) along with a bunch of other petitions, dismissed the appeal on the ground that the same did not lie before him. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the order passed by the DHC was patently wrong because in the present petition question was not as to whether the appeal could be filed before him against the order passed by the CO rather DHC mistook the appeal of the petitioner as it was filed against the order of the SO. 4. A perusal of order (Annexure P-6) passed by the DHC shows that he dismissed the appeal on the short ground that petitioner had remedy to file appeal against the order passed by the CO before the SO. In the case in hand, order of the CO was not challenged before the DHC rather orders passed by CO and the SO were challenged before him as provided under section 21(4) of the Act. 5. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the DCH, Punjab to decide appeal No. 367 of 1987 titled Kalawanti vs. Gram Panchayat mentioned at Sr. No.15 in the impugned order passed by the DHC after issuing notice to the concerned parties on merits and expeditiously preferably within six months from the date, the parties appear before him. 6. Disposed of. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 8.12.2010. SN