C.W.P No. 10971 of 1992 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 10971 of 1992 (O&M) Date of decision : April 21, 2011 Mohinder Singh, ...... Petitioner v. Additional Director Consolidation, Punjab and others, ...... Respondents *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. K.S.Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. *** 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 challenging the order dated 13.6.1991 (Annexure P-4), whereby an application under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, was rejected. By the aforementioned application, the petitioner had claimed that during consolidation a passage had been carved out from the middle of his tak. However, up-till 1991, all the right-holders were using the passage C.W.P No. 10971 of 1992 (O&M) ::2:: on the side of his tak but after relations between him and his neighbourers deteriorated in 1991, the neighbourers started insisting that passage be given from the middle of the land of the petitioner. This application was rejected by the impugned order in the following terms :- “ Today, the file has been put up in the presence of Rattan Singh, counsel for the petitioner and D.P, Advocate for the respondents. The petitioner has made a demand for passage and khal. Heard. Appeal is rejected. Order has been pronounced. File be consigned to the record room after necessary action.” On 13.8.1992, notice of motion was issued and status quo was directed to be maintained. However, thereafter despite a passage of almost two decades, neither any reply has been filed nor any body has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents. It seems that the grievance raised by the petitioner may be justified. I also find that the impugned order is an extremely cryptic order and has not considered various issues raised in the application (Annexure P-3). Consequently, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned order (Annexure P-4) is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Director Consolidation, Punjab for a fresh decision on the application of the petitioner (Annexure P-3), in accordance with law. ( AJAY TEWARI ) April 21, 2011. JUDGE `kk'