IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.913 of 2007 Date of decision : December 16, 2010 Jagdish Ram …Petitioner. Versus Director Consolidation and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Petitioner is aggrieved by order Annexure P-3, passed by Director Consolidation in a petition, under Section 54 of the H.P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971, filed before him by respondent No.2 Shri Rawan. His grievance is that the petition was hopelessly barred by limitation, having been filed about 15 years, after the passing of the order that had been challenged in the said petition. Also, it is alleged that petition was filed on 27th February, 2007 and notice was issued to the petitioner for 26th March, 2007, on which date petitioner’s counsel appeared but the Director Consolidation, without hearing his counsel, passed the impugned order, remanding the case to Consolidation Officer, Bilaspur. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 3. It is not in dispute that the petition was instituted on 27th February, 2007 and notice was issued to the petitioner for 26th March, 2007, and the impugned order was passed on 26th March, 2007, itself. Though there is nothing on the record, suggesting that petitioner’s counsel prayed for adjournment for filing any reply to the main petition or to the application for stay, yet the normal practice is that on the first date Power of Attorney is filed and opportunity is afforded to the opposite party to file reply, if any, and the matter is then posted for final hearing. In the present case, this practice was not followed. 4. In view of the abovestated position, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded. I have been told that the post of Director Consolidation has been abolished and the powers have been delegated to the Divisional Commissioners. The area, to which the present matter pertains, falls within the jurisdiction of Divisional Commissioner, Mandi. So, the matter is ordered to be sent to Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, with a direction to dispose of the petition, under Section 54 of the H.P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, filed by respondent No.2 Shri Rawan, in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, on 3rd January, 2011. Writ petition stands disposed of. December 16, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J