- (1.) None has appeared in the case either for the petitioner or for respondent No. 2. The record has been perused.
(2.) It appears that the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jalandhar, passed an exparte order dated 30.6.1969 in the consolidation proceedings against one Naranjan Singh, respondent No. 2 herein. The said Naranjan Singh, respondent, filed an application before respondent No. 1 praying for setting aside of the exparte order and for re-opening of the proceedings. After perusing the records, respondent No. 1 came to the following conclusion :- "The relevant file has been examined and it is observed that appellant Mr. Niranjan Singh was never impleaded as a party in the petition filed under Section 42. The counsel for the appellant also pointed out that the order of the Addl. Director, Consolidation of Holdings dated 30.6.1969 was kept a secret by the respondents because it has been given effect only recently by way of a mutation after about a period of 10 years. After examining copy of the Khasra girdawari for Kharif 1979, produced by the respondents. It is, observed that the change of Khasra numbers as a result of order of the Addl. Director C/H dated 30.6.1969 has been noted in the Khasra girdawari on 6.10.1979 a result of the mutation No. 1070 sanctioned on 21.5.1979 cultivation of Shri Niranjan Singh appellant continues recorded till date. Apparently, the delay in getting the mutation sanctioned in compliance with the order of the Addl. Director C/H dated 30.6.1969 and further not taking the possession of the land so far makes one to place some genuineness and credence to the plea of the appellant that he was not present before the Addl. Director C/H when the order on 30.6.1969 was passed. In the interest of fair play, where the presence of the appellant if he was actually present cannot be taken to be a real opportunity afforded to the appellant when he can actually not be impleaded and summoned."
(3.) The exparte order was, therefore, set aside and the petition under Section 42 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act was directed to be re-opened after giving a opportunity to respondent No. 2. The appeal filed against the aforesaid order was also dismissed. The order impugned being based upon record do not require any interference particularly when it has not taken away any right of the parties which is to be adjudicated and determined in the presence of the contending parties. The petition having no merit is accordingly dismissed.Q;