IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.8787 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION : MAY 18, 2011 BAL KRISHAN ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 This petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 23.7.2010 (Annexure P-8), whereby Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Panchkula, has issued Warrant of Possession. Order (Annexure P-8) details that the petitioner has been ordered to be ejected from the property by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Panchkula, vide order dated 26.5.2006 (Annexure P-5). 2 As per order (Annexure P-5), passed under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as applicable to Haryana, the petitioner was duly served. Reply was filed claiming possession over the property. At subsequent stage, however, despite a number of opportunities having been given on 10.4.2006, 17.4.2006, 24.4.2006, 1.5.2006, 8.5.2006 Civil Writ Petition No.8787 of 2011 2 and last opportunity on 12.5.2006, none appeared for the petitioner to bring evidence. Even counsel for the petitioner did not appear and evidence was closed and the case was fixed for arguments. None appeared even to argue the matter, although two opportunities were given. Constrained with the circumstances, final order of ejectment of the petitioner was pronounced on the basis of record produced by the Gram Panchayat. 3 It has been pointed out that vide Annexure P-6, an application was filed to set aside ex-parte order dated 26.5.2006 (Annexure P-5). 4 I have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5 Application (Annexure P-6) to set aside ex-parte order (Annexure P-5) was filed on 19.12.2008 i.e. after about 2- 1/2 years. The order passed on the application has not been placed on record. 6 Considering the conduct of the petitioner, I am convinced that the petitioner has tried to frustrate the process of law. Order (Annexure P-5) has been passed after taking into account relevant revenue record. It is not that the petitioner was not served, rather, the petitioner was given half a dozen opportunities to bring evidence and later two opportunities to argue the matter, none however, was availed. 7 Even the application (Annexure P-6) for setting aside ex-parte order (Annexure P-5) was filed after about 2-1/2 years. In such circumstances, I find no illegality in issuance of Warrant Civil Writ Petition No.8787 of 2011 3 of Possession (Annexure P-8). 8 No ground for judicial review, in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction, is made out as the statutory authorities have proceeded in accordance with law, after showing a lot of tolerance for the casual conduct of the petitioner. 9 The petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. May 18, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?