JUDGMENT Mr. Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral):- The petitioner claims that he is legal heir of his brother Ram Kishan, who is missing for the last more than three decades. To say so, reliance has been placed upon a judgment passed by a Civil Court on 29.8.2012, vide which the petitioner was declared the only legal heir/successor of said Ram Kishan. 2. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash an order dated 31.1.1996 (P-3), passed by respondent No.3 against said Ram Kishan, vide which land/plot shown in the name of Ram Kishan, was ordered to be allotted to Munshi son of Ballu-respondent No.4. 3. Further challenge has been made to an order dated 27.7.2010 (P-4), passed by respondent No.2, dismissing an application filed by the petitioner under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (in short ‘the Act’). 4. In the above application, the petitioner has laid challenge to an order dated 31.1.1996, passed against his brother Ram Kishan. The above application was dismissed simply on a ground that as the petitioner was not a party before the Consolidation Officer, he has no locus standi to file that application. 5. We have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 6. In the order passed by the Consolidation Officer on 31.1.1996, it is stated that at the time of consolidation proceedings, land falling in Khasra No. 238 (0 kanal 7 marlas) was entered in the name of Ballu son of Sandal through Nagar Panchayat. However, subsequent thereto that khasra number was wrongly divided into two parts bearing Khasra No. 238/1 measuring 0 kanal 4 marlas and Khasra No. 238/2 measuring 0 kanal 3 marlas. 7. 3 marlas of land was shown to have been allotted to Ram Kishan-brother of the petitioner, by passing an order by the Consolidation Officer in the year 1972. The Consolidation Officer has not discussed in detail, as to why/how that change was reflected in the revenue record. The said order was passed in the absence of Ram Kishan. It was specifically noted by the Consolidation Officer that, as per report on the summons, it has been stated that Ram Kishan was missing since long. Even then, no effort was made to implead legal representatives of said Ram Kishan. Said Ram Kishan was condemned unheard. 8. The said order was passed in the absence of Ram Kishan. It was specifically noted by the Consolidation Officer that, as per report on the summons, it has been stated that Ram Kishan was missing since long. Even then, no effort was made to implead legal representatives of said Ram Kishan. Said Ram Kishan was condemned unheard. 8. At the time of arguments also, counsel for the parties have failed to show record, prepared at the time of consolidation proceedings, showing allotment of land falling in Khasra No. 238, in favour of Ballu and any other order, vide which above plot was divided into two parts and allotted one to Ram Kishan and second to Bhatna son of Ram Ji Lal. Even Ram Kishan was not available before the Consolidation Officer when above order was passed. Copies of the jamabandis have not been placed on record to support or oppose findings given by the Consolidation Officer. Resolution of allotment, at the time of consolidation proceedings, allotting land falling in Khasra No. 238, to father of respondent No.4 through Nagar Panchayat, is also not available. 9. Under the circumstances, we allow this writ petition, impugned orders are set aside and matter is remitted to the Consolidation Officer to decide dispute afresh, after hearing both the parties. The Consolidation Officer shall peruse the record, prepared at the time of consolidation proceedings, and then pass an order. 10. Parties are directed to appear before the Consolidation Officer at Hisar on 10.9.2013. --------0.B.S.0------------