CWP No.18429 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.18429 of 2010 Date of decision: 02.08.2011 Balbir Singh and another ....Petitioners Versus The Director Consolidation, Haryana, and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. R.S. Budhwar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana. Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate, for respondents No.3 to 5. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) Present petition is filed assailing order dated 17.6.2004 passed by learned Consolidation Officer, Karnal, as well as order dated 28.7.2005 passed by Director, Consolidation, Haryana. Brief facts of the present case inter alia are that Sukhbir Singh and Maan Singh, respondents No.6 and 7 herein preferred an application before the Director, Consolidation under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 with a prayer that they have been allotted land comprised in rectangle No.16 killa No.19/2, 20, but rasta to their land has not been provided so they may be provided rasta. Learned Consolidation Officer, Karnal, in the impugned order dated 17.6.2004 has observed as under: - CWP No.18429 of 2010 2 “Both the parties were heard and record was carefully perused. Petitioner stated that his area be exchanged with the Killa nos.16//21/2, 22 of Hari Krishan, respondent, ad 'rasta' be provided through Killa No.16//23. On this, both the parties were given time to compromise the matter. But today both the parties have stated that no compromise has been arrived at for the exchange of the land. The respondent has stated that in case 'rasta' is provided along the southern line of killa nos.16//18-19/1, then the said 'rasta' will lead through the middle of his fields. Both the parties showed their willingness of providing 'rasta' towards northern line of killa nos.16//17/3, 18 and killa no.16//19/1. On this, Balbir, respondent raised little objection and respondent Rajbir agreed to provide the 'rasta'. By providing 'rasta' along the northern line of Killa Nos.16//17/3. 18, 19/1, nobody is affected and the petitioner agrees to give equivalent land to the respondent for the land used for the 'rasta'. By providing the 'rasta' to the fields of the petitioner, it leads through the middle of the fields of the respondents. Petitioner cannot be provided 'rasta' from an other place. In this case, there is no need to inspect the spot. Therefore, keeping in view the agreement between the parties and in compliance with the order of remand, 'rasta' of 2 Karam along the northern line of Killa nos.16//17/3, 18, 19/1 is provided.” Order passed by learned Consolidation Officer dated 17.6.2004 has been confirmed by the Director Consolidation vide impugned order dated 28.7.2005. From the bare perusal of the order passed by learned Consolidation Officer dated 17.6.2004, I find that learned Consolidation Officer has returned self-contradictory finding. In one place it has been observed “both the parties were given time to compromise the matter. But today both the parties have stated that no compromise has been arrived at for the exchange of the land” and at the other place, learned Consolidation Officer has observed “both the parties showed their willingness of providing 'rasta' towards northern line of killa CWP No.18429 of 2010 3 nos.16//17/3, 18 and killa no.16//19/1. On this, Balbir, respondent raised little objection and respondent Rajbir agreed to provide the rasta”. From the above finding it is, thus, clear that matter was never compromised; Balbir Singh, petitioner, never consented rather raised objection, therefore, order passed by learned Consolidation Officer is self-contradictory and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is strange that learned Director, Consolidation, failed to notice the glaring illegality committed by learned Consolidation Officer. Learned Consolidation Officer has wrongly recorded that he is deciding the case as per compromise, therefore, orders impugned cannot be sustained. Petition is allowed. Orders impugned are set aside. Parties are directed to appear before the Consolidation Officer on 30.8.2011. Consolidation Officer shall pass order afresh after hearing all the parties at length and shall pass detailed order in accordance with law within 30 days thereafter. (Alok Singh) Judge August 02, 2011 R.S.