IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1886 of 1989 Date of decision: 18.05.2010 Santa and another ….Petitioners versus Secretary to Government of Punjab, Revenue Department, Consolidation Branch, Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and others. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ------ Present: None for the petitioners. Mr. Manohar Lall, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.3 (deceased) LRs. . ----- 1. Whether reporters of local papers 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? ----- K.Kannan, J (Oral) 1. The writ petition challenges an order passed by the authority constituted under the East Punjab Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act of 1948. The order came to be passed on the basis that between the petitioners and the 3rd respondent, the mutation had been wrongly carried out referring to the entitlement of the respective parties as following the ratio 1/3 : 2/3 when the proper shares ought to have been only 1/2 : 1/2. The impugned order states that it was a mistake committed by the patwari at the time of preparation of kharaj- Shamal. Civil Writ Petition No.1886 of 1989 - 2 - 2. There is no basis in the writ petition to point out that the order contains any mistake of the finding by the Additional Director in the impugned order that the mutation had been wrongly carried out. 3. The case is of the year 1989 and there has been no representation except the Government counsel Shri Manohar Lall, when the matter is called. It is also seen that the petitioners themselves were parties at the time when the petitioners filed the appeal under Section 42 of the said Act. There is no illegality shown in the order from the reading of the writ petition to sustain the challenge. The writ petition is consequently dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 18.05.2010. sanjeev