IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) CWP No. 4557 of 1988. Date of Decision: 11.11.2010. Gram Panchayat Ranike ......Petitioner Versus The Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings & others. .....Respondents (2) CWP No. 4558 of 1988. Date of Decision: 11.11.2010. Gram Panchayat Ranike ......Petitioner Versus The Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings & others. .....Respondents (3) CWP No. 4565 of 1988. Date of Decision: 11.11.2010. Gram Panchayat Ranike ......Petitioner Versus The Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings & others. .....Respondents (4) CWP No. 5403 of 1987. Date of Decision: 11.11.2010. Gram Panchayat Ranike ......Petitioner Versus The Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings & another. .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP No.4557, 4558 and 4565 of 1988. Mr. Amarjit Markan, Advocate, for the petitioner in CWP No.5403 of 1987 Mrs. Rajni Gupta, Addl. AG, Punjab, for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Rajpaul Kansal, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 5. NAWAB SINGH.J.(ORAL) This judgment would dispose of four writ petitions filed by Gram Panchayat Ranike Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur because identical question of law and facts are involved in all these writ petitions. 2. Gram Panchayat Ranike has filed the present writ petitions for quashing of orders dated January 7th, 1988, February 5th, 1988 and May 21st, 1987 (Annexurers P-1) passed by Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Chandigarh, whereby, he accepted the petitions filed by respondents No.2 to 5 under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. 3. When the consolidation took place in the year 1954-55 in village Ranike, respondents No. 2 to 5 were allotted new killa numbers in respect of their holdings in the shape of old khasra numbers. Respondents No. 2 to 5 made grouse before the Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab that area allotted to them was less than the area which they ought to have been allotted. Thereupon, some area was allotted to them in addition from the land belonging to the Nagar Panchayat Deh which was meant for being used for Rafa- i-am/Share-i-am (Annexure P-2) vide impugned orders. 4. The main contention of the petitioner-Gram Panchayat before this Court now is that Gram Panchayat could not be deprived of the area without being compensated. This contention has substance. Thus, the writ petitions are allowed. Orders (Annexures P-1) are declared illegal and quashed. However, this Court directs that matter be re-considered by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Chandigarh and decide the matter afresh. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 11.11.2010. SN