IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 22179 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION : 30.11.2011 Dalbir Singh .... PETITIONER Versus Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Mr. Ramesh Goyat, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. In the instant petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is praying for quashing of the order dated 20.7.2011 (Annexure P-5), passed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar (respondent No.1) exercising the powers of the Director, Consolidation, under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), whereby the application filed by the petitioner and his two brothers for making correction in the consolidation record has been dismissed. In this case, after about 45 years of the consolidation, the petitioner and his two brothers filed an application under Section 42 of the CWP No. 22179 of 2011 -2- Act, seeking correction in the consolidation record, alleging therein that their father and uncle, namely Dei Chand and Gopal Lal, respectively, were real brothers and as per jamabandi for the year 1953-54, they were in joint possession of Khasra No. 1759 measuring 3 bighas 2 biswas. However, during the consolidation, an error was committed, as father of the petitioner was not allotted any share in the said khasra number being the co-tenant, and the entire land was allotted to Gopal Lal, uncle of the petitioner. This factual mistake was further entered in the revenue record on the basis of the mutation sanctioned on 6.10.1966. The Director, Consolidation, after considering the prayer made by the petitioner and his brothers, perusing the consolidation record and hearing the counsel for the parties, dismissed the said application on two grounds. Firstly, that the said application was filed after a long delay, which could not have been entertained in view of the judgment of this Court in Sohna Ram Versus Director, Consolidation Punjab, 2005 (2) HRR 543. Secondly, that the petitioner and his brothers had raised the issue of not allotting any share in the said khasra number by filing a civil suit, in which the LRs of his uncle Gopal Lal were party. The said civil suit was dismissed on 26.8.2004. The appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed on 30.1.2008, and the Regular Second Appeal filed by them has also been dismissed by this Court on 9.7.2009. While taking into consideration the findings of the civil court, whereby claim of the petitioner was rejected, the Director, Consolidation has come to the conclusion that the revenue entries, CWP No. 22179 of 2011 -3- which were not corrected by the Civil Court, cannot be ordered to be corrected under Section 42 of the Act. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order. The findings of the civil court are binding. Once the petitioner failed to establish his claim in the civil court, then for the same relief, the Director, Consolidation could not entertain the application under Section 42 of the Act, at a belated stage. Therefore, in our view, the Director, Consolidation has committed no illegality, while dismissing the application filed by the petitioner and his brothers under Section 42 of the Act. No merits. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE November 30, 2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) ndj JUDGE