Judgment G.S.Singhvi, J. 1. This petition is directed against orders dated 1.10.1982 (Annexure P4) passed by Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings Punjab and 23.11.1984 (Annexure P12) passed by Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab (respondent No.l). 2. The facts:- The consolidation scheme of village Issi, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur was pre- pared, published and finalised in 1956. Respondent Nos.2 and 3, who had participated in the consolidated proceedings, did not raise any objection or questioned the scheme till they filed a petition in 1982 under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short, the Act) for making good the alleged deficiency to the extent of one rupee and eight annas by making the follow- ing averments:- "5. That after it at the time of allotment (Taqseem Mukarar) came. According to these resolutions, the land shown as under was given to the applicant. A Grade B Grade Total Rs. Annas Paisa Rs. Annas Paisa Rs. Annas Paisa 17.7.2 5.15.1 23.6.3 Here note deficiency of Re. 1 Annas 3 Paisas 2 occurred. 6. That on 3.6.1959, at the time of hearing the appeal under Section 21(4) of the Act, the Assistant Director gave one Karam wide and 50 Karams long Pahi in Killa No. 861 owned by the applicant provided to Ishar S ingh s/o Sehna Singh. By providing this Pahi, further deficiency of 0 Rupee 1 Anna 2 Paisas caused to the applicant. In this way the total deficiency comes to Rupee 1 Annas 5. 7. That in Killa No. 801, area of which was 4-16 while entering in Khatauni 1957-58, at the time of consigning the record, area of Kila No. 801 in place of 4-16 Biswas, has been shown as 4-3 whereby more deficiency of 13 Biswas occurred. The value of which is Annas 3 and by adding the same, the total deficiency of Rupee 1 Annas (sic) is caused." 3. In the petition filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3, the petitioner was impleaded as one of the two non-petitioners, but without ensuring service of summons and by assuming that Naurang Singh, Panch had not appeared despite due service of notice, Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab passed order Annexure P4 vide which he allowed the petition of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and granted relief in terms of the prayer made by them. 4. 2 and 3 and granted relief in terms of the prayer made by them. 4. On coming to know of order Annexure P4, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 42 of the Act with the prayer for setting aside the said order by asserting that summons of the petition filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 had not been issued or served upon it. It was also averred that there was no deficiency in the allotment made to respondent Nos.2 and 3 and, therefore, there was no valid ground to entertain their prayer. Along with the petition the petitioner filed affidavit dated 27.8.1984 of Shri Naurang Singh son of Shri Tarlok Singh (ex-Panch). The relevant portion of that affidavit is extracted below:- "That I was Panch in the earlier Panchayat of village Issi and the order passed by the Additional Director C/H, Punjab, on 1.10.1982, in respect of land between Kaka Singh s/o Sehna Singh, resident of Issi v. Gram Panchayat Issi. Neither 1 nor the Sarpanch of our village has been called for on any dates of hearing nor have we received any summons etc. nor we have appended any signature/thumb impression. This order is absolutely wrong, baseless as the appellant has got the order passed by impleading their own persons of which we are not aware of it. We came to know when the aforesaid appellant came to get mutation of 23 Bighas 14 Biswas. I have never appeared in any Court in the aforesaid case nor have I received any summons." 5. During the pendency of the petition filed by it under Section 42 of the Act, an application dated 23. i 1,1984 (Annexure Pll) was also filed on behalf of the petitioner for summoning the file of the case decided by Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab. However, without considering the averments contained in the petition filed by it, the affidavit of Naurang Singh and without summoning the record relating to order Annexure P4 respondent No. 1 dismissed petition filed by the petitioner by recording the following reasons "Evidentially (Evidently) lite Jurnla Mushtarka MaSkan have been given the notice and if they wanted to absent theresiicWcs nohc-dy couid slop them. Service of one of the right-holders of the status of Panch vvho represents a, large number of village community, has been made and if he has absented himself it is at his own will. Service of one of the right-holders of the status of Panch vvho represents a, large number of village community, has been made and if he has absented himself it is at his own will. Moreover, this petition has been filed on 27.9.84 i.e. full one year afSf the passing of the order dated 1.10.1982.as such, this petition could not be entertained at this belated stage. The petition being without any substance for the review of the order dated 1.10.192, stands dismissed. No other point or arguments has been raised or pressed. File be consigned to the record room." 6. The petitioner has challenged order Annexure P4 on the ground of violation of the rules of natural justice and also on the ground that it is wholly arbitrary. It has challenged orner Annexure P12 on the ground that it suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of the record. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In my opinion order Ar.nexure P12 suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of the record, inasmuch as, while dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner under section 42 of the Act, respondent No.l completely ignored its plea that order Annexure P4 had been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The question whether ex parte order Annexure P4 passed by respondent No. 1 was legally correct could not have been de- decided by him without perusing the record relating to that order, but without summoning the concerned file, the officer concerned dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner that too, without assigning cogent reasons for not accepting the categorical statement made by Naurang Singh that he had not received the summons. 8. In view of the above, I do not consider it necessary to examine the legality of or- der Annexure P4 on merits and feels that ends of justice would be met by remanding the case to respondent No.l with the direction to decide the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 42 of the Act afresh. 9. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. Order Annexure P12 is declared illegal and quashed. Respondent No. 1 is directed to decide the case afresh after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the parties. 9. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. Order Annexure P12 is declared illegal and quashed. Respondent No. 1 is directed to decide the case afresh after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the parties. It is expected that respondent No. 1 will pass fresh order within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The parties may obtain dasti copies of this order on payment of fee prescribed for urgent applications.