C.W.P No. 575 of 1987 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 575 of 1987 (O&M) Date of decision : November 11, 2010 Jagga Singh and another, ...... Petitioners v. Addl. Director, Consolidation of Holdings & others, ...... Respondents *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Amarjit Markan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Gill, DAG Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. Nitin Sarin, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 4.12.1986 (Annexure P-9), whereby the case was remanded back to the Consolidation Officer. The dispute is with regard to allotment of Abadi and Roori plots. By an order dated 27.9.1984, the matter was remanded back to the Consolidation Officer on a petition filed by the present petitioners. C.W.P No. 575 of 1987 (O&M) ::2:: Consequent to that, the parties appeared before the Consolidation Officer and the matter was decided on the basis of the consent of the private respondents. Thereafter, the private respondents challenged that order by way of an appeal before the Settlement Officer but the same was dismissed on 28.1.1986 both for non appearance as well as being time barred. Thereafter, the private respondents filed a petition, under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. On the said petition, the impugned order was passed and it was held that the remand order dated 27.9.1984 having been passed in the absence of the private respondents was illegal and consequently, the same was set aside and a date was fixed for hearing the original petition. Assailing the impugned order, counsel for the petitioners has argued three points. Firstly, having participated in the proceedings against the Consolidation Officer and thereafter having challenged that order by way of an appeal, the private respondents could not lay challenge to the original order of remand. Had they so desired, they could have challenged the remand order immediately. Secondly, it has been argued that the remand order was passed on consent and, thus, no further proceedings could lie at the instance of the parties. The third argument raised is that consequent to the order passed on remand, the parties are now in separate possession of their allotted plots for the last more than 25 years. It is, thus, prayed that the impugned order be set aside. Counsel for the private respondents has argued that the private respondents had not only challenged the order of remand but also challenged the subsequent orders. Be that as it may, the fact remains that by the impugned order, C.W.P No. 575 of 1987 (O&M) ::3:: the remand order (which had worked itself out) has only been set aside. There is no denial of the fact that the Consolidation Officer had passed the order on consent. Keeping both these factors in mind, as also the fact that the parties have now in settled possession for the last about 25 years, it would be in the interest of justice to allow this writ petition and set aside the impugned order. Ordered accordingly. No costs. As the main petition has since been allowed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) November 11, 2010. JUDGE `kk'