IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.15485 of 2008 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : MAY 02, 2011 MAHENDER SINGH & ANR. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, HARYANA & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. SS Nara, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. RS Sihota, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. BR Rana, Advocate, for respondents 4 to 9. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 This judgment shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition No.15485 of 2008 (Mahender Singh and another v. The Director of Consolidation, Haryana and others); Civil Writ Petition No.15546 of 2008 (Mahender Singh and another v. The Director of Consolidation, Haryana and others); Civil Writ Petition No.15693 of 2008 (Ram Parsad v. The Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana and others) and Civil Writ Petition No.18226 of 2008 (Shankar v. The Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana and others), as learned counsel for the parties are ad- idem that the facts and circumstances of the cases are similar and similar impugned orders have been challenged. Civil Writ Petition No.15485 of 2008 (O&M) 2 2 For reference to record, Civil Writ Petition No.15485 of 2008 (Mahender Singh and another v. The Director of Consolidation, Haryana and others), is being taken up. 3 This Civil Writ Petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 22.7.2008 (Annexure P-9), passed by the Director, Consolidation, Haryana (respondent No.1). 4 Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that vide order dated 24.8.2001 (Annexure P-3), passed by Consolidation Officer, Consolidation of Holdings, Rohtak, consolidation proceedings were completed, after amendment in the consolidation scheme. However, respondent No.4-Anil Kumar and others, on 29.1.2003, filed an application under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act'). Vide order dated 27.2.2004 (Annexure P-4), passed by Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana, the application under Section 42 of the Act was dismissed, while holding thus:- “..... I agree with the contention of the counsel for the respondents and again and again appeal under Section 42 were filed by the applicants which have already been dismissed after hearing. The applicants file appeal only against one objection. Therefore, as per Res judicata time and again hearing of the appeals cannot be done. Even then deep consideration was made on the demand of the applicants which do not appear to be proper. The application has unnecessarily been filed. Keeping in view all the above mentioned facts there is no need of any action on this case. Hence, it is rejected.” Civil Writ Petition No.15485 of 2008 (O&M) 3 5 Anil Kumar and others, aggrieved by order (Annexure P-4), filed CWP 3164 of 2005. After notice of motion, the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution by a Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 26.3.2007. 6 Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the private respondents filed yet another application under Section 42 of the Act. The application has been entertained and virtually allowed vide impugned order (Annexure P-9). Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that the private respondents placed reliance on decision of this Court dated 9.10.2006, passed in CWP 15957 of 2006. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the private respondents had filed CWP 3164 of 2005 and not the petition on which reliance was placed and considered by the Director, Consolidation, while allowing the case. CWP 15957 of 2006 is a case that is entitled 'Kharga son of Nathi, Ramchandi son of Nathi and Paimi son of Hukmi v. Director Consolidation, Haryana and others'. 7 Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that the private respondents were not the petitioners in that writ petition and, therefore, the order would have no application. 8 Order dated 9.10.2006, passed in CWP 15957 of 2006, reads as under:- “Learned counsel for the petitioners prays that he be allowed to withdraw the petition with liberty to pursue his remedy before the competent authority. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.” 9 Learned counsel for the parties contend that let the Civil Writ Petition No.15485 of 2008 (O&M) 4 Director, Consolidation, reconsider the issue in view of the facts and circumstances that have been brought to the notice of the Court. 10 In view of the statement of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is allowed and order dated 22.7.2008 (Annexure P-9) is hereby quashed. The case is remanded back to the Director, Consolidation, Haryana, to again consider the facts and circumstances of the case and pass orders afresh, after taking into account the case of respective parties. It is directed that the Director, Consolidation, Haryana shall, at the first instance, consider whether the matter can be reopened even though the consolidation proceedings were finalised vide order dated 24.8.2001 (Annexure P-3) and, subsequently, application filed by Anil Kumar and others under Section 42 of the Act was dismissed vide order dated 27.2.2004 (Annexure P- 4), while holding that in view of order (Annexure P-3), principle of res-judicata is to be invoked. The Director, Consolidation, Haryana, shall also consider the effect and impact of order passed by this Court in CWP 3164 of 2005 decided on 26.3.2007. 11 The parties, through their respective counsel, are directed to appear before the Director, Consolidation, Haryana, on 18.5.2011. May 02, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?