C.W.P. No.10421 of 1989 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.10421 of 1989 (O&M) Date of Decision.23.03.2011 Gram Panchayat Ghagga, through Raghbur Singh Sarpanch, Shiv Kumar, Panch and Sandeep Singh, Panch Tehsil Samana, District Patiala ......Petitioner Versus Director Consolidation/Holdings Punjab, Chandigarh and another .....Respondents Present: Ms. Anjali Khosla, Advocate for Mr. Jagdev Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J. 1. The writ petition challenges the order passed by the 1st respondent while deciding the petition under East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. By the impugned order, the claim of one Javinder Singh son of Bhagwan Singh had been excluded treating him to be a proprietor of the Shamlet land in Khewat No.322 in village Ghagha. The order proceeds on alleged concession given to the representative of the Panchayat that there could be a correction of the record. In relation to the very same village, there was yet another claim of one Gajjan Singh referring to the fact that the property recorded as Shamlet Taraf Pind Hasab Rasad was wrongly recorded to be the property of the village panchayat and a writ petition C.W.P. No.10421 of 1989 (O&M) -2- had been filed before this Court in C.W.P. No.5265 of 1989. The present writ petition also refers to the fact of the pendency of C.W.P. No.5265 of 1989 and states a similar treatment has to be given by a proper enquiry. 2. The writ petition in C.W.P. No.5265 of 1989 has been disposed of on 3.12.2010 with the direction that any correction of the records could not have been made without proper notice to a person, who could be affected. In this case, it cannot be stated that notice had not been given but the contention is that the village panchayat had given a wrong concession at the instance of a functionary of the village panchayat. 3. I set aside the order dated 05.01.1988 and direct the 1st respondent to consider the application filed by the respondent in the light of records and on appropriate evidence being recorded from both parties and dispose of in accordance with law. 4. The writ petition is allowed and matter is remitted to the 1st respondent for disposal in accordance with law. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 23, 2011 Pankaj*