C.W.P No. 253 of 1987(O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 253 of 1987(O&M) Date of decision : July 23, 2010 Malkiat Singh, dead, through L.Rs and others, ...... Petitioner (s) v. The Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab Jalandhar and another, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. RPS Cheema, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S.Gill, DAG Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. Y.K.Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** 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 has been filed against the orders (Annexures P-3 and P-4). By the order (Annexure P-3), an application under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 ( for short “the Act”), filed by respondent No.2, was allowed and it was held that the petitioners had been allotted 1 kanal 6 marla of excess land, out of which 1 kanal and 2 marla of land was to be C.W.P No. 253 of 1987(O&M) ::2:: allotted to the private respondent and the remaining to the Gram Panchayat. The petitioners then moved an application for review of the said order on the ground that in fact they had never been served and that their presence had been wrongly recorded. The said application was dismissed by order (Annexure P-4). There is great divergence between the learned counsels on the question of fact as to whether the petitioners were present or not at the time when hearing was conducted on the earlier occasion. In my opinion, it may not be necessary to go into that question. It is not disputed that consolidation took place in the village in the year 1953-54. Thereafter, an application under Section 42 of the Act was filed by the predecessor-in- interest of the private respondent in 1969. Another 16 years later i.e in the year 1985, the instant second application was filed. Even if the petitioners were present and heard yet the order passed is extremely cryptic and laconic. It merely states that as per the record, the petitioners are liable for cut. However, no details are mentioned therein. Counsel for respondent No.2 has further argued that since this is an old matter, it should be given decent burial. In my opinion that would not be appropriate. Even if the petitioners were present at the time when the hearing was concluded and order (Annexure P-3) passed, yet it would be in the interest of justice if this grouse of the petitioners is satisfied and a fresh order is passed after hearing them. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned orders (Annexures P-3 and P-4) are set aside and parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the Additional Director Consolidation C.W.P No. 253 of 1987(O&M) ::3:: of Holdings, Punjab on 1.9.2010. Keeping in view the fact that this dispute is so old, the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab is directed to decide this case expeditiously but in any case not later than 31.12.2010. No costs. As the main petition has since been allowed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) July 23, 2010. JUDGE `kk'