CWP No. 1035 of 1987 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 1035 of 1987 Date of decision :August 26, 2010 Nand Lal and another ...... Petitioners v. Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana, Chandigarh and others ...... Respondents *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr.Narender Lucky, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.A.K.Gupta, Addl. AG, Haryana. *** 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 This petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 28.11.81 (Annexure P-3/T) and 12.6.86 (Annexure P-5/T). By order Annexure P-3/T the path to the village pond was extended. As per the petitioners, as a consequence of this they suffered loss of land and that they were not heard before the order was passed. By order Annexure P-5/T the revision petition was rejected. As regards the issue of non-impleadment, the revisional authority held as follows:- “ I have examined the case very carefully. The order dated CWP No. 1035 of 1987 2 28.11.81 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation is in the file and the same has been perused. It is correct that by the order of Settlement Officer the path has been extended upto Johar and due to this amendment, the area of the applicants has been slightly affected. The applicants were neither impleaded party nor they were heard before passing the order. But I am agree with the reasoning given in the order for extending the path upto Johar, and I think that path has been extended rightly. Due to this change in the area of applicant is very slight and there is no big effect on their tuck. Thus, there is no need to interfere in the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation of Holding.” I have gone through the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Advocate General. It is not disputed that the petitioners were not heard. It can also not be disputed that the loss caused to the petitioners was very marginal. In the circumstances it would be in the interest of justice if the order is upheld provided the petitioners are suitably compensated. In the circumstances the matter is remanded back to respondent No.1 for deciding the issue of compensation to be given to the petitioners either by way of money or by way of land from the bachat area which ever may be deemed to be appropriate, after hearing the petitioners. The order dated 28.11.1981 shall remain inoperative till the final order is passed by respondent No.1. The petitioners are directed to appear before respondent No.1 on 04.10.2010. The petition is accordingly disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) August 26 , 2010. JUDGE sunita