Judgment Mehtab S.Gill, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of impugned order dated August 27, 1985 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation, Jalandhar. 2. The petitioner has averred that Consolidation of Holdings under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter called "the Act") took place in village Mallian in the year 1960. The revenue estates of village Mallian and that of another village Chohan are adjacent to each other. 3. The petitioner moved a petition under Section 42 of the Act before the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab (respondent No. 1) on his behalf and on behalf of others as he had a Special Power of Attorney. 4. Respondent No. 1, vide his order dated May 2, 1982 (Annexure P-1) remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer, Jalandhar (respondent No. 2). Respondent No. 2, vide his order dated March 26, 1984 (Annexure P-2) accepted the claim of the petitioner and compensated him to the extent of 11 kanals 8 Marias Standard acre. It has been further averred that the respondents alienated the land by way of a registered gift deed in January, 1984, which was in violation of the stay order dated July 12, 1982 passed by respondent No. 2. It has been further averred that the entire area of land situated in village Chohan was sold by respondent Nos. 3 to 19 by way of a single sale deed dated February 4, 1960. Subsequently, this area was gifted out of their remaining holdings in village Chohan in violation of the stay order dated July 12, 1982 passed by respondent No. 2. 5. It has been further averred that respondent Nos. 3 to 19 filed a revision petition under Section 42 of the Act before the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings (respondent No. 1) and challenged the order dated March 26, 1984 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Consolidation Officer, Jalandhar (respondent No. 2). The Grounds of Appeal dated May 17, 1984 are attached as Annexure P-3. Respondent No. 1 accepted the revision petition filed by the respondents and set aside the order dated March 26, 1984 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Consolidation Officer, Jalandhar. 6. Notice of motion was issued. 7. Written statement was filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 8. Respondent No. 1 accepted the revision petition filed by the respondents and set aside the order dated March 26, 1984 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Consolidation Officer, Jalandhar. 6. Notice of motion was issued. 7. Written statement was filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 8. Replying to para 7 of the petition, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have stated that the Consolidation Officer, Jalandhar wrongly exercised his jurisdiction vide his order dated March 26, 1984 (Annexure P-2) in compensating the petitioner. Further, the respondents have, in their reply stated that the gift of land in village Chohan was a valid one without any mala fide intention. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and perused, the writ petition. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement on October 22,20002 before this Court wherein he stated that no relief is claimed by the petitioner against respondent Nos. 5 to 19. This Court, vide order dated October 22, 2002, dismissed the petition qua respondent Nos. 5 to 19 as not pressed. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that vide a single registered sale deed dated February 4, 1960 respondent Nos. 3 to 19 had sold an area measuring 158 kanals 7 marlas of village Mallian and 115 Kanals 2 Marias of village Chohan to the members of family of the petitioner. The mutations were effected and sanctioned. At the time of Consolidation of Holdings, there was a deficiency of land measuring 11 kanals 8 marlas standard acre. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that there is no dispute as to the title of the land, but as the registered sale deed was one, thus, the petitioner cannot be denied for getting this land measuring 11 Kanals 8 Marias, which at the time of consolidation, should have been given to the petitioner. All that the petitioner is wanting is to be suitably compensated by the allotment of an area of land measuring 11 Kanals 8 Marias Standard acre which is in short fall of the total area of the petitioner. 12. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 has stated that the gift deed, being bona fide, the compensation and defect in less area of land measuring 11 Kanals 8 Marias being given to the petitioner. 12. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 has stated that the gift deed, being bona fide, the compensation and defect in less area of land measuring 11 Kanals 8 Marias being given to the petitioner. The respondents alone should not be made to compensate the petitioner. 13. I have gone through the orders of the Consolidation authorities, which are attached as Annexure P-1, P-2 and P-3. Annexure P-1, the order of the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab which is dated May 3, 1982, is only an order vide which the case was remanded to the Consolidation Officer, Jalandhar (respondent No. 2). Annexure P-2 is an order of the Consolidation Officer, Jalandhar, which is dated March 26, 1984. 14. While going through the order dated March 26, 1984 (Annexure P-2), it comes out that the Consolidation Officer, Jalandhar has taken into consideration the land of the petitioner, which is situated in village Mallian. He has also gone through the registered sale deed February 4, 1960, which is of both villages Mallian and Chohan. Further he has gone through the gift deed also, which the petitioner has stated that, it was executed only to circumvent the interests of the petitioner, so that the petitioner could not get his due share of area of land measuring 11 Kanals 8 Marias Standard acre, which was deficient in village Chohan. This was in violation of the stay order dated July 12, 1982 passed by respondent No. 2. 15. In reply to para No. 7 of the petition, the respondents have not come out with a clear and categorical answer as to why the stay order dated July 12, 1982 was violated. 16. Going through the impugned order dated August 27, 1985 (Annexure P-4), the only reasoning coming forward therein is that the land purchased in village Chohan could not be adjusted against the claim of the petitioner in village Mallian. The Addi tional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab vide his order dated August 27, 1985 (Annexure P-4), has failed to take into consideration this aspect that the registered sale deed was a common one. The Addi tional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab vide his order dated August 27, 1985 (Annexure P-4), has failed to take into consideration this aspect that the registered sale deed was a common one. Since the registered sale deed being a common one, the peti tioner is entitled to get an area of land measuring 11 Kanals 8 Marias from village Mal lian or village Chohan, It is not the case of the petitioner that compensation, which the petitioner is wanting is of only the land in village Mallian. All he is wanting is compen sation of land from village Chohan or village Mallian. All that the petitioner is wanting is his due share of land measuring 11 Kanals 8 Marias Standard acre from any of the two villages. This was entirely up to the Consolidation authorities to go into the matter and what was suitable at that moment, should have been done by them. 17. In the light of the above discussion, the order dated August 27, 1985 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab is set aside. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to go into the matter again and compensate the petitioner to the tune of land measuring 11 kanals 8 Marias Standard acre from any of the two villages. The directions shall be complied with within a period of six months from the passing of this order. 18. With the above directions, writ petition is allowed.