IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 23258 of 2010 Date of Decision: August 17, 2011 Chain Pal and others. ….Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana, for the respondents. 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Alok Singh, J. (Oral) The only grievance of the petitioners is that respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5 are proceeding with the consolidation proceedings without any revenue record despite report of the Deputy Commissioner/Collector (Annexures P/2, P/6, P/7 and P/8), therefore, Director, Consolidation, be directed to take decision on the report of the Deputy Commissioner/Collector (Annexures P/2, P/6 to P/8) within such time as fixed by this Court. CWP No.23258 of 2010 Mr. Gaurav Dhir, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, has fairly stated that without relevant revenue record, consolidation proceedings should not be initiated. He further states that Director, Consolidation, shall take into consideration opinion of the Deputy Commissioner within 90 days. Without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, respondent No.2 is directed to take decision on Annexures P/2, P/6 to P/8, submitted by Deputy Commissioner, Panipat, within 90 days from the date certified copy of this order is placed before him. Meanwhile, further consolidation proceedings in the village shall remain in abeyance. Petition stands disposed of. August 17, 2011 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 2