JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated February 15, 1994 and March 28, 1995, by which the claim of respondent Kartar Singh regarding 1 Kanal 1 Marla of land has been upheld. The petitioner claims that the authorities have erred in ordering restoration of land, especially in view of the fact that a period of almost 30 years had elapsed after the consolidation. 2. We have heard Mr. Jasbir Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. S.S. Salar, learned counsel for the legal representatives of Kartar Singh, respondent No. 2. 3. It is not disputed that respondent Kartar Singh had approached the authorities with the grievance that during consolidation he was entitled to the allotment of area of the value of 19-4-0. In fact, he had been given land only of the value of 18-7-0. He had prayed that this deficiency should be made good. Vide order dated September 26, 1989, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P1 with the writ petition, the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, had accepted this claim and directed the Consolidation Officer to examine the record and decide the matter. Thereafter, vide order dated July 20, 1990, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P2 with the writ petition, the Consolidation Officer had ordered restoration of the land to Kartar Singh, respondent-claimant. The Gram Panchayat Kular Khurd filed an appeal. It was rejected by the Settlement Officer. However, second appeal was accepted by the Assistant Director. The case was remanded to the Consolidation Officer. Vide order dead February 15, 1994 the Consolidation Officer again accepted the claim of respondent Kartar Singh and ordered restoration of the land to him. The petitioner Gram Panchayat approached the Director Consolidation under Section 42 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Director has also upheld the claim of the respondent- landowner. It has been found as a fact that the record clearly shows that respondent Kartar Singh had been given land less than his due. Thus, the order of the Consolidation Officer has been upheld. 4. Mr. Jasbir Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the consolidation proceedings having taken place as far back as the year 1958-59, the authorities should not have reopened the matter after the lapse of 30 years. Thus, the order of the Consolidation Officer has been upheld. 4. Mr. Jasbir Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the consolidation proceedings having taken place as far back as the year 1958-59, the authorities should not have reopened the matter after the lapse of 30 years. He relies upon he decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat, Kakran v. Addl. Director of Consolidation and another, 1997(2) PLJ 375, in support of his submission. 5. It is undoubtedly correct that every authority exercising powers under a statute should be reluctant to reopen the settled matters. However, in a case like the present one, where the petitioner had got undeserved benefit, the error cannot be allowed to be perpetuated merely on account of lapse of time. It is not disputed that the respondent had got land less than his entitlement. The Panchayat had retained possession of the land belonging to the second respondent for a long time. Once it is found that the respondent is actually entitled to the land measuring 1 Kanal 1 Marla, it would be wholly iniquitous and unfair to perpetuate the wrong and deprive the landowner of his property. The Gram Panchayat has no cause for complaint. It has remained in possession of the property for a long time. The claim of the second respondent having been sustained, it is only fair that the possession is now restored to him. Even in the case of Gram Panchayat Kakran (supra) their Lordships were pleased to observe that the "question of law has to be decided on facts of each case." The facts of this case speak loud enough. There is no equity in favour of the petitioner so as to entitle it to complain of any injustice. No other point has been raised. In view of the above, we find no merit in this petition. It is, consequently, dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.