IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA C.W.P. No. 760 of 2007 Date of decision: 16.7. 2009 Smt. Karmi Devi through her GPA Sh. Kamaljeet …..Petitioner Versus Director, Consolidation of Holdings & ors. ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 . no For the Petitioner: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. R.M. Bisht, Dy. Advocate General, with Mr. Vikas Rathore,and Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra Dy. Advocate General, for respondent- State. Mr. K.S. Banyal, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Deepak Gupta, J (Oral). By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.3.2007, passed by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, exercising the powers of the State Government under Section 54 of the H.P. Consolidation of Holdings (Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes - 2 - Admitted facts are that the consolidation proceedings in the village in question were completed in the year 1973 and certain land was allotted to the petitioner herein. Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 filed a petition under Section 54 of the Act praying that 13 marlas of land out of Khasra No. 565 (old) measuring 1 kanal 9 marlas has wrongly been allotted to Smt. Karmi Devi present petitioner. Surprisingly, in the revision petition, the date of the order of allotment has not been mentioned anywhere. This order was passed in the year 1973. The revision was filed in the year 2003 i.e. 30 years later. There is not a whisper as to what prevented the private respondents from filing a revision petition or appeal at an earlier stage. We are clearly of the view that when there was not even a prayer for condonation of delay and not a whisper as to what was the reason for condoning the delay, the Director Consolidation could not have exercised his powers after a lapse of 30 years. The impugned order, therefore, is totally illegal and is accordingly quashed and set aside. Shri K.S. Banyal submits that respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are in possession of some land which has been allotted to the petitioner. If respondents are in possession - 3 - of the land, they may have some other remedy to protect their possession, which they may pursue in accordance with law. However, the Director Consolidation could not been intervened at this belated stage. CMP No. 1308/2007 In view of the disposal of the main petition, this application is also disposed of. (Deepak Gupta),J. July 16, 2009 (Surinder Singh),J (cm)