KARAM CHAND Vs. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the Director of Consolidation passed in Case No. 191/99 on 7.12.2000. The respondents had instituted a revision petition under Section 54 of the H.P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 where a grievance had been made regarding wrong allotment of the land to the parties during consolidation proceedings. By his order dated 7.12.2000 (Annexure P-1), the Director of Consolidation has allowed the revision petition filed by the respondents.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has assailed the judgment on a number of grounds. For the purposes of the present petition, only two grounds are being considered, namely that respondent No. 1 had declined adequate time to the petitioners to engage a counsel to represent their case, despite such a request having been made. The other ground was whether the Director had jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter after the lapse of a long period of time.

(3.) THIS Court is not expressing any opinion on the respective contentions of the parties, since it is felt that respondent No. 1 was not right in deciding the matter in hot haste. The records of the case were also called to ascertain whether such a request was made and whether the records on the basis of which the decision was taken were put up before respondent No. 1. It is undisputed that respondent No. 1 is a statutory authority discharging adjudicatory duties. From the records, it was found that summons for appearance had been received by the son of the petitioner on 27.11.2000. The matter was taken up thereafter on 7.12.2000. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, it was not possible that during such short period, counsel could be instructed or the record inspected more-so when it was not in the office of respondent No. 1. The proceedings regarding allotment were being taken after a long period of more than 10 years and reasonable time was required. I find that the request of the petitioners was justified in these circumstances. If a short adjournment was prayed for, there was no question of prolonging the proceedings as the main claim itself related to proceedings which had been initiated and concluded more than 10-11 years back. The Director of Consolidation was wrong in ignoring this plea. Although denial of assistance of counsel does not perse constitute violation of the principles of natural justice, nevertheless, where the matter is complex, such right has been read into the principles of natural justice. In the present case, I find that the record seems to have been produced on the very day when the matter was taken up for proceedings. Again, no opinion is being expressed as the Attendance Register maintained by respondent No. 1 only showed the presence of the Patwari and nothing else. Even assuming that the records had been brought on that day, surely, the petitioners were entitled to inspect the same in order to effectively represent their case. It was not expected that the petitioners should be prepared on all facets of the case after a period of 10-11 years after the matter had been concluded. Considered in the totality of the circumstances, I am of the considered view that respondent No. 1 was not correct in granting a short adjournment to the petitioners in order to enable them to prepare their case. The request has been turned down in a mechanical manner and for reasons which are not sustainable. It is not understood as to how litigation could be prolonged by short adjournment when the main matter itself had been instituted after a period of about 10 years.