RUPENDER ALIAS RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order dtd. 6/11/2019 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Consolidation Officer, Karnal exercising powers under Sec. 43-A of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as '1948 Act'), is not sustainable in the light of the fact that the said order has been passed without issuing any notice to the parties concerned who have been adversely affected in pursuance to the said order. Counsel has further gone to the extent of saying that there is no power of review conferred under the 1948 Act and, therefore, the order, which has been passed under Sec. 42 of the 1948 Act in favour of the petitioners, cannot be set aside in this manner by the Consolidation Officer, Karnal without there being any notice to the petitioners and others.

(2.) On the last date of hearing i.e. 2/3/2022, learned counsel for the State was called upon to seek instructions with reference to the assertion of the counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order dtd. 6/11/2019 (Annexure P-4) has been passed without issuing notice to the petitioners, which fact is acknowledged by the counsel for the State. However, an explanation has been sought to be projected by her with reference to Sec. 43-A of the 1948 Act, to contend that there is no mandate in the said provision for issuing notice or hearing the parties before passing the order.

(3.) We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, have gone through the record.