IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition 16419 of 2009 Date of decision: 19.11.2009 Jarnail Singh and ors …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and ors …Respondents Present: Ms Naiya Gill, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr HS Gill, DAG Punjab. Mr Surinder Sharma, Advocate for respondent-3. S.S. SARON, J. Mr Surinder Sharma, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent-3 and has filed his Vakalatnama along with a copy of the resolution of the Gram Panchayat Village Kuba Heri, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar (respondent-3). The same are taken on record. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioners filed a petition (P10) under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act 1961 (Act – for short) for declaring them along with other ‘Khewatdars’ of the village to be the owners of the land, as detailed in the head note of the said petition. The said petition was dismissed in default on 29.1.2007. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an application (P14) for restoration of the petition. Reply (P15) was filed to the application (P14) seeking restoration of the petition dismissed in default. It is submitted that a new district of Mohali was 1 CWP 16419 of 2009 established and village Kuba Heri of the petitioners, which was part of Ropar district was transferred to Mohali district. The petition (P10) under Section 11 of the Act was also transferred to the new district of Mohali before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (D) Mohali, (exercising the powers of Collector under the Act). The petitioners on account of the said transfer of the case to Mohali district could not appear there and the case was again dismissed in default vide order dated 26.8.2008 (P17). The petitioners then filed an application (P18) before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Mohali (respondent-2) seeking recall of the said order dated 26.8.2007 (P17) which has been dismissed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner exercising the powers of Collector, SAS Nagar vide order dated 7.7.2009 (P20). Against the said orders, the petitioner has filed the present petition, seeking quashing of the orders dated 26.8.2008 (P17) and 7.7.2009 (P20). The case has been dismissed for non-prosecution. It is well known that where technical considerations and cause of substantial justice are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice is to be preferred as the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate act. Besides, a litigant is heavily dependent upon his counsel for the prosecution or defence of his case and after having engaged a counsel and briefed him, he is complacent and supremely confident that his interest would be watched by his counsel. Therefore, a party is not liable to suffer for the failure of his counsel to appear or even if there is a deliberate omission on the part of the counsel. Learned counsel for respondent-3 has very fairly stated that he has no objection to the petition being heard on merit. 2 CWP 16419 of 2009 Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 29.1.2007, 20.8.2008 (P17) and 7.7.2009 (P20) are set aside and quashed. The learned Collector (Addl Deputy Commissioner (D) Mohali) shall proceed to dispose of the petition (P10) filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Act in accordance with law. The parties shall appear before the learned Collector (Addl Deputy Commissioner (D) Mohali) on 22.12.2009 for further proceedings. 19.11.2009. ( S.S.SARON ) ASR JUDGE 3