IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.7083 of 2011 Date of Decision: April 26, 2011 Harjant Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Premjit Kalia, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that proceedings, in the form of quasi judicial proceedings, for correction of Khasra Girdawri under the Punjab Land Revenue Act were pending before Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Ajnala, District Amritsar viz. respondent No.4. 2. During the course of proceedings, petitioner received summons indicating that proceedings are scheduled to be held on 30.4.2010, as would be evident from Annexure P-1. CWP No.7083 of 2011 [2] Respondent No.4, however, decided the case on 29.4.2010, in total dis-regard to the process of court and the rights of the litigating party. 3. It has also been said in the petition that petitioner applied for certified copy of the order on 3.6.2010 which was supplied on 26.7.2010. It has been found that proceedings have been wrongly recorded by respondent No.4. Petitioner filed a complaint against respondent No.4 before Deputy Commissioner –cum- Collector, Amritsar, who is the appellate authority. 4. Learned counsel contends that till date, no action has been taken on the representation/ complaint of the petitioner that has been placed on record as Annexure P-3. 5. This petition is disposed of, at this stage itself, with direction to respondent No.2 viz. Deputy Commissioner –cum- Collector, Amritsar, to have an enquiry conducted in regard to the allegations made in the petition and complaint dated 26.11.2010 (Annexure P-3). Enquiry be concluded within 30 days of receipt of a certified copy of the order. 6. In case, respondent No.4 has been found to have mis-conducted the court proceedings, appropriate action on the administrative side be recommended to the CWP No.7083 of 2011 [3] appointing authority of Tehsildar –cum- Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Ajnala, District Amritsar i.e. respondent No.4 namely Kanwaljit Singh Randhawa. 7. It is made clear that it should be ensured that no manifest injustice is caused to the rights of the petitioner on account of mis-conduct in court proceedings. 8. Consideration of the Court is only in regard to allegations made. Effect of the order is only so that a proper enquiry is conducted in regard to the allegations. It does not mean that this Court has gone into merits or truthfulness of the complaint. 9. It is further made clear that in case the petitioner has filed a wrong complaint, appropriate action against the petitioner be initiated. (AJAI LAMBA) April 26, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?