L.P.A. No. 2026 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 2026 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 07.11.2011 Gaje Singh and others .....Appellant Versus Additional Director, Consolidation of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present:- Mr. S.K.S. Bedi, Advocate for the appellants. **** SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J(Oral). This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5.7.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by respondent No. 4-Jugal Kishore was allowed, and the order dated 25.4.1989 passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation on the application of the appellant as well as with consequential order dated 25.6.1990 passed by the Consolidation Office, was set aside. Learned Single Judge has allowed the aforesaid writ petition on the ground that the order dated 25.4.1989 passed by the Additional Director Consolidation was wholly without jurisdiction as the earlier application filed by the appellant with regard to the same relief under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Consolidation Act') was dismissed on 17.11.1987 holding that the appellant was an un- L.P.A. No. 2026 of 2011 2 authorised occupant therefore he was not entitled for allotment of any land. Undisputedly the said order was never challenged by the appellant before this Court and the same became final between the parties. While fully aware of the said fact, the appellant again moved an application under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act for the same relief which was illegally entertained and without jurisdiction allowed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Rohtak, vide order dated 25.4.1989. Learned Single Judge while referring to the Full Bench decision of this Court in Deep Chand and others Versus Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab and another, AIR 1964 Punjab 249 has held that the Director Consolidation was having no power to review his earlier order. He could not entertain the second application and the said order passed by the Director Consolidation was wholly without jurisdiction. Hence the same and consequential order dated 26.6.1990 were set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the factual position that his earlier petition was dismissed on 17.11.1987 filed under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act for the same relief and also could not point out any contrary law which authorises the Director Consolidation to review his earlier order and entertain the second application on the same cause of action. Thus, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE 07.11.2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) reema JUDGE