IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (118) Neki Ram State of Haryana & others CORAM : Present: DEEPAK SIBAL In the year 2017, the petitioner filed an application under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holding 1948 (for short, the ‘1948 Act’) before the Commissioner, Karnal (for short, the ‘Com record which scheme. Through order dated dismissed by the Commissioner 2. therein restoration of his application filed u Since by that of the 1948 Act had been transferred by the State from the Commissioner of Division to the Deputy Commissioner IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (118) Neki Ram Versus State of Haryana & others CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr.Digvijay Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr.Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana. ***** DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) In the year 1963-64, consolidation of In the year 2017, the petitioner filed an application under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1948 (for short, the ‘1948 Act’) before the Commissioner, Karnal (for short, the ‘Commissioner’), seeking therein correction record which, according to him, did not commensurate with the consolidation Through order dated 19.05.2022 by the Commissioner for non-prosecution. In November, 2023, the petitioner filed an application seeking restoration of his application filed u ince by that time, the powers to decide an application of the 1948 Act had been transferred by the State from the Commissioner of Division to the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner’s IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-23149-2025 Decided on : 25.09.2025 .…Petitioner(s) Versus ……Respondent(s) MR.JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL LAPITA BANERJI , Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr.Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana. 64, consolidation of village Sajuma took place. In the year 2017, the petitioner filed an application under Section 42 of the (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1948 (for short, the ‘1948 Act’) before the Commissioner, Karnal Division , seeking therein correction in the revenue not commensurate with the consolidation 19.05.2022, the petitioner’s application was prosecution. In November, 2023, the petitioner filed an application seeking restoration of his application filed under Section 42 of the 1948 Act time, the powers to decide an application filed under Section 42 of the 1948 Act had been transferred by the State from the Commissioner of the petitioner’s restoration application …Petitioner(s) ……Respondent(s) took place. In the year 2017, the petitioner filed an application under Section 42 of the (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation Act, Division in the revenue not commensurate with the consolidation application was In November, 2023, the petitioner filed an application seeking nder Section 42 of the 1948 Act. under Section 42 of the 1948 Act had been transferred by the State from the Commissioner of a restoration application SAILESH RANJAN 2025.09.26 11:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-23149-2025 -2- was taken up and heard by the Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal (for short, the ‘DC’). Through order dated 11.02.2025, the DC dismissed the petitioner’s restoration application only on the ground that the petitioner had not appended therewith a certified copy of order dated 19.05.2022 passed by the Commissioner dismissing the petitioner’s application filed under Section 42 of the 1948 Act for non-prosecution. The order of the DC dated 11.02.2025 is the subject matter of challenge through the instant petition. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance also gone through the record. 4. Once the powers to decide the application under Section 42 of the 1948 Act had been transferred by the State from the Divisional Commissioner to the Deputy Commissioners, the entire record must have been transferred from the office of the Divisional Commissioner to office of the DC. That being so, the order of the Commissioner dated 19.05.2022 would have been available on the record before the DC which she could have, without much trouble, been able to trace. 5. Even otherwise, through his restoration application, all that the petitioner sought was a decision on merits on the application filed by him under Section 42 of the 1948 Act. 6. In the light of the above facts, we deem it just and appropriate to set aside order dated 19.05.2022, passed by the Commissioner, Karnal Division and the order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the DC and direct the DC to consider the petitioner’s application filed by him under Section 42 of the 1948 Act, on its merits, in accordance with law. SAILESH RANJAN 2025.09.26 11:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-23149-2025 -3- 7. It is made clear that while issuing the aforesaid direction, we have not commented on the merits or maintainability of the petitioner’s application filed by him under Section 42 of the 1948 Act. 8. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) September 25th, 2025 JUDGE sailesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No SAILESH RANJAN 2025.09.26 11:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document