CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12546 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 17, 2011 Gram Panchayat Mandi, District Panipat .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr. Praveen Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.4. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Respondent No.4 filed an application in the year 2002 for giving him some land, which was less in his plot in Abadi Deh. The petitioner-Panchayat appeared before the authority concerned and made a statement that it was not willing to consider the prayer made by respondent No.4. The stand of Panchayat was that respondent No.4 is not entitled to any land because he is in illegal possession of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12546 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: the Panchayat land measuring more than ½ acre. As per the Panchayat, if any land was less, it could be adjusted from that portion of the land, which was in unauthorized occupation of the said respondent. It appears that the Panchayat defaulted in appearing before the authorities concerned and suffered an exparte order. As per the petitioner-Panchayat, it came to learn about the exparte order on 4.7.2009, when directions were given to respondent No.3 to give raqba from Killa No.100//15/1 or from the land of the petitioner. As per the Panchayat, this order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing as on the date fixed, appearance could not be put on behalf of the petitioner-Panchayat due to some unavoidable circumstances. Pursuant to this, Tehsildar-cum-Consolidation Officer, Panipat, has already passed an order on 24.2.2009, which so far has not been challenged by the petitioner. Instead, the petitioner- Panchayat moved an application before respondent No.2 under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C for setting-aside the exparte order passed on 9.1.2007. This prayer of the petitioner-Panchayat has been declined, which is now under challenge through the present writ petition. Since the impugned order, may be passed exparte, has been implemented, it would be more appropriate for the petitioner- Panchayat to challenge the order dated 24.2.2009, Annexure P-2, to get any effective relief. So far, the petitioner-Panchayat has not raised any challenge against this order. The apprehension expressed by counsel for the petitioner that exparte order standing against the petitioner-Panchayat would stand in its way to get an effective relief, may not be fully misplaced. In order to do substantial justice and to CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12546 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: cut-short the litigation, it is considered appropriate that directions be issued to the authorities concerned to consider the challenge, if raised by the Panchayat against order dated 24.2.2009, Annexure P- 2, without taking into account the effect of exparte order standing against the Panchayat. It is so ordered. Further, the setting-aside of the exparte order, at this stage, though may otherwise be called for, would lead to further prolonging the litigation. It is, thus, considered appropriate to direct the authorities concerned to consider the request of the Panchayat and the pleas on merits, if the impugned order dated 24.2.2009 is put to any challenge in accordance with law. Needless to mention that respondent No.4 would be entitled to take all the objections available to him in accordance with law but subject to the observations made by this Court. This order has been passed with concurrence of the counsel appearing for the parties. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. August 17, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE