Civil Writ Petition No. 421 of 1991 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 421 of 1991 Date of decision:- 25.05.2011 Balbir Singh ....Petitioner Vs. The State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present:- Mr. M.L. Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Surender Kapoor, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr.Dinesh Trehan, Advocate, for the private respondents. ***** A.N. JINDAL, J (ORAL) Balbir Singh-petitioner has invoked the provisions of Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 21.09.1990 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, whereby the area of disputed Khasra No. 379 was corrected from 12 Marlas to 18 Marlas. The claim of the petitioner is that the consolidation proceedings in village Bhagta Bhai took place in the year 1961-62, wherein respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were allotted 12 Marlas of land comprised of Khasra No. 379 in lieu of the land measuring 1 Kanal 2 Marlas comprised of old Khasra No. 2709/1. However, Civil Writ Petition No. 421 of 1991 2 respondent Nos. 2 and 3 moved a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, for correction of the area from 12 Marlas to 18 Marlas. Vide order dated 21.09.1990, the Consolidation Officer, allowed the application and it was directed that the area of new Khasra No. 379 be corrected as 18 Marlas instead of 12 Marlas. This order has been challenged by the petitioner. Reply to the petition was filed, wherein it was submitted that the area of old Khasra No.2709/1 was 1 Kanal 2 Marlas, against which Khasra No. 379 was allotted to respondent Nos. 2 and 3. After purchasing the aforesaid land, possession was received and boundary wall was raised. But, on coming to know that the consolidation authorities entered the area as 12 Marlas instead of 18 Marlas regarding Khasra No. 379, they had to file a petition for correction of the said area. The respondents have claimed that actually the area obtained during the consolidation proceedings was 66 Karams, which should have been 18 Marlas. Thus, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the petition. Arguments heard. Record perused. The area purchased by the private respondents was 1 Kanal 2 Marlas before the consolidation and the same area was converted into 18 standard Marlas after consolidation. Therefore, it appears that no fault could be found with the impugned order (Annexure P-4) passed by the Consolidation Officer. The petitioner has not brought on record any document in order to refute the impugned order. Civil Writ Petition No. 421 of 1991 3 No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. (A.N.JINDAL) 25th of May, 2011 JUDGE ajp