C.W.P No. 465 of 1987 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 465 of 1987 (O&M) Date of decision : July 22, 2010 Gurbachan Singh, dead, through L.Rs and others, ...... Petitioner (s) v. The Director, Consolidation of Holdings Haryana and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. H.S.Gill, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vivek Goel, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for respondents No.3 to 5. *** 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 challenges the order dated 4.11.1986 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Director Consolidation of Holdings Haryana allowing an application under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short “the Act”), filed by the private respondents wherein they had claimed that prior to consolidation they were shown as tenants of the land in dispute but no land was allotted to them in consolidation. C.W.P No. 465 of 1987 (O&M) ::2:: Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that prior to the impugned order also, the private respondents had moved an application under Section 42 of the Act (albeit on slightly different grounds), which had been dismissed. He has, therefore, contended that the second application would not lie since the ground taken therein was available to the private respondents even at the time when they filed the first application. The above argument is sought to be countered by learned counsel for the private respondents. However, it may not be necessary for this Court to dilate on this aspect because learned counsel for the petitioners has made another ground, which is that during this interregnum, the entire land of the village has been acquired, which is not disputed by counsel for the private respondents. In these circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that apart from agitating their rights under the Act, it was open to the private respondents to move an application for claiming their alleged share in the compensation. In those circumstances that would have been their substantive plea to assist their title. However, as per instructions given to him, no such application was ever moved. Counsel for the private respondents, on the other hand, states that he is not in a position to either accept or deny this assertion. In these circumstances, it has to be held that the private respondents having not agitated their claim before the Land Acquisition Tribunal cannot hope to succeed under the impugned order. Consequently, this writ petition has to be disposed of as having become rendered infructuous. Ordered accordingly. However, if lateron it transpires that the private respondents had agitated their rights for their share in the compensation in the land acquisition proceedings it would be open for them C.W.P No. 465 of 1987 (O&M) ::3:: to seek revival of this writ petition. As the main petition has since been disposed of, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) July 22, 2010. JUDGE `kk'