MUNSHI RAM Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the correctness of the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 20.5.1986 (Annexure PB) and the order dated 23.9.1988 passed by the Joint Director, Land Records (Annexure PC). The writ petition was filed in this court on 23.1 1.1 9,0. On 17.12.1992, the Deputy Advocate General took notice on behalf of respondent No. l and 2 and the Court ordered notice before admission to respondent No.3 and 4. On 5.3.1991 at the Oral request of the petitioners counsel, the 4th respondents name was dated in the individual capacity and the 4th respondent was .mown thereafter, as Assistant Consolidation Officer, Amb, District Una. The Court also took note of the fact that a reply had beer, filed en behalf of respondent No. l and

(2.) The Assistant Advocate General took notice on behalf of respondent No.4. Four weeks time, was granted on behalf of respondents No.3 and 4 for filing the reply. Again time was extended by three weeks to file the reply by respondent No.3 on 16.4.1991. On 21.5.1991, the writ petition was admitted and the interim order dated 17.12.1990 was made absolute.

(2.) When the matter came before us on 7.8.1997, we found that all records must be made available to the court for deciding the case in a proper manner and adjourned the case to 1st September, 1997. The case has come up before us today.