IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 17985 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION : 23.09.2011 Sanjeev Kumar .... PETITIONER Versus Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL Present: Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) Petitioner Sanjeev Kumar has filed the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 5.11.2008 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Consolidation Officer, Naraingarh, which has been passed after the remand order and after making the spot inspection in the presence of the parties, as well as the order dated 9.3.2011 (Annexure P-6), passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, whereby the order dated 29.10.2009 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) Ambala, has been set aside and the CWP No. 17985 of 2011 -2- aforesaid order dated 5.11.2008 has been upheld. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned orders. Undisputedly, on an appeal filed by Ram Nath (respondent No.4 herein), vide order dated 10.5.2008 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Director Consolidation Haryana, the matter was remanded. In pursuance of the said order, the Consolidation Officer, Naraingarh, after making the spot inspection in the presence of the parties and perusing the entire revenue record, passed the following order : “Today, this case has again been heard and both the parties have been heard in detail. The counsel for the parties has stated that the Consolidation Officer Karnal in his decision on 5.4.2006, Killa No. 7 (10-11) and Killa No. 6 (6-5-16) has been wrongly taken out and 5/25 Min 4, 21, 7, 1 G has been wrongly given because killa NO. 7 (10-11) (20-21) eastern doll and there were its earlier number, popular and safeda trees are there. The old doll be made and killa number 6 (20-21) – (21-2) should be added with rasta and the earlier doll be established and my deficiency be fulfilled. The respondents have stated that they have got the correct rakba and Consolidation Officer, Karnal has rightly passed the order. Demand of the applicant is useless. As per price, there is no deficiency. I have been given the land on major portion. The case be dismissed. I heard both the parties and came to know that the applicant was in Khasra No. 4, 21, 5, 25, 6 (4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 15) 7 (1, 10, 11). The land of the applicant is there. This land was wrongly taken from him and given to the respondent. The earlier khasra number popular CWP No. 17985 of 2011 -3- and safeda trees are there. The land which has been given from khasra No. 7, 11, 20, 21 which is almost the major portion of the earlier land of the applicant but under section 21 (2), the land from major portion has been taken and given to the respondent wrongly. The applicant is having safeda and popular trees. From the applicant killa No. & (10, 11, 20, 21 min) 6 sark, 15 sark – 16 has wrongly been cancelled. Respondent Sanjeev Kumar Sr. No. 26 gathwar No. 4 (12, 19 min, 21 min, 22) 7 (12 min, 2 min, 10 min, 11 min, 12 min, 19 min, 20 min, 21 min, 22 min) Killa No.1 1 sark, 10 sark, 11 sark, 12 sark and 21 sark is near the land of the applicant whereas killa No. 7 (20-21) purkilla has been given and in killa No. 7 (20 and 21) more than major portion has been given which is wrong. At the time of partition, he was almost given the correct land. After seeing the spot doll no. 8, Killa No. 7 (10, 11) which is in the sark and the straight rasta 7 (20/1, 20/2, 21/2) become the street where the trees of the applicant are there. As per the record, it is right to give this land to the applicant. Therefore, keeping in view the remand order, the applicant is given the land near his major portion and the same is accepted with these observation.” Though the aforesaid order was set aside by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) Ambala, by passing a non-speaking order (Annexure P-4), but it was affirmed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the opinion that the Consolidation Officer, after looking into the record and on the basis of the inspection, made by him in the presence of the parties, has decided the matter by recording a pure of finding of fact, which can not be CWP No. 17985 of 2011 -4- interfered in the writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE September 23, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) ndj JUDGE