Judgment HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Challenge in the present writ petition is to an order passed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon on 26.11.2013 (Annexure P5) under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Act’), whereby an appeal filed by respondent Nos.6 & 7 was allowed and the scheme of consolidation of land as modified by the Tehsildar–cum-Consolidation Officer on 02.11.2012 was restored. The petitioner herein is purchaser of land from respondent Nos.8 to 13 vide different sale deeds executed in the year 2012. Respondent Nos.6 & 7 invoked the jurisdiction of the Additional Director (Consolidation) under Section 42 of the Act. The said application was allowed on 30.05.2012. It has also come on record that even the vendors of the present petitioner have purchased the land in the year 2011 vide sale deeds dated 18.05.2011, 23.05.2011 & 24.05.2011 i.e. after the draft scheme of consolidation was prepared on 10.08.2009 and confirmed on 14.06.2010. Learned Commissioner while exercising the powers under Section 42 of the Act on 30.5.2012 found that respondent Nos.8 to 13 have been allocated land illegally without keeping in mind the fact that they have purchased the land after finalization of scheme of consolidation. Hence the allotment was cancelled and the matter was remanded back to the Consolidation Officer, Faridabad to provide opportunity of hearing to respondent Nos.6 & 7. After remand, the Tehsildar–cum-Consolidation Officer passed an order on 02.11.2012 amending the scheme. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order, which was allowed on 31.12.2012 by District Revenue Officer-cum-Settlement Officer, inter alia, holding that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of land and that order dated 02.11.2012 has been passed at their back. Thus the direction was issued to the Consolidation Officer to decide the matter afresh. The appeal filed by respondent Nos.6 & 7 was dismissed on 09.04.2013 by the Collector. However, in further appeal under Section 42 of the Act, the orders passed by the Settlement Officer (Annexure P3) and the Collector (Annexure P4) were set aside and that the order of Consolidation Officer (Annexure P2) was restored. The sole argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not heard by the Consolidation Officer before passing the order on 02.11.2012. We find that the contention of the petitioner is wholly misconceived. The sole argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not heard by the Consolidation Officer before passing the order on 02.11.2012. We find that the contention of the petitioner is wholly misconceived. In fact, a perusal of the order shows that the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioner were party before the Consolidation Officer and one of them namely Yashpal appeared and stated that they have sold the area to someone. No particulars of the purchaser were disclosed, which led the officer to publish the notice in the locality through Chowkidar. Since none appeared, the order was passed on 02.11.2012. The petitioner could in pursuance of public notice appear before the officer and put up its point of view forward. But no such step was taken. The learned Commissioner in the impugned order has found that the petitioner is the one, who has purchased the property after an application for modification of the scheme was filed by respondent Nos.6 & 7. It has been found that since the petitioner has not become party, therefore, there is no need to issue them separate notice. The order passed in the presence of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioner is, thus, binding on the present petitioner. Consequently, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, which may warrant any interference by this Court in its writ jurisdiction. Dismissed.