JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. Petitioner instituted Civil Suits No. 423/70/62 of 1977 and 382/78 for possession in the court of Sub Judge, Hamirpur in respect of the land as detailed in Annexure PA. Decree for possession was passed on 27.1.1981. Different appeals were preferred against the judgment and decree dated 27.1.1981 before the first appellate court. These were dismissed on 1.6.1981. Two Regular Second Appeals were carried against the judgment and decree dated 1.6.1981 bearing RSAs No. 63/81 and 65/81. These Regular Second Appeals were dismissed on 1.12.1989. Proceedings under H.P. Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 were initiated in the year 1981. Initially, land of the petitioner was kept out of consolidation proceedings on account of litigation amongst the co-owners, as per the orders of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation Department dated 11.1.1983. Petitioner assailed order dated 11.1.1983 by filing revision before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 passed the orders that decision for partition during consolidation proceedings be carried out by keeping the decision of civil court in consideration and subject to final decision by this Court vide Annexure PD. Respondent No.2 heard the objections and ordered that re-partition proceedings be carried out in accordance with the scheme and the estate right holders be kept in cultivatory possession of the land as per Annexures PE and PE-1. Respondent No.3 passed further order on 22.3.1988 that petitioner be allotted standard 23.17 kanals of land in lieu of his original holding of 42 kanals 3 marlas. Petitioner filed objections before the Settlement Officer to the effect that his land has been fragmented. Respondent No.3 passed the order for delivery of possession vide Annexure PG-2 and PG-3. However, this order was not complied with. The consolidation scheme was withdrawn on 3.4.1994. It is in these circumstances petitioner filed writ petition before this Court. 2. Learned Single Judge passed the following order on 22.4.2003: “Heard for some time. The case of the petitioner is that his land measuring 42 kanals 3 marlas was allotted to other right holders and in lieu thereof he was allotted land measuring 23.17 standard kanals. His grievance is that though the possession of 42 kanals 3 marlas allotted to the right holders was taken over by them, yet he was never put in possession for 23.17 standard kanals of land which was allotted to him. His grievance is that though the possession of 42 kanals 3 marlas allotted to the right holders was taken over by them, yet he was never put in possession for 23.17 standard kanals of land which was allotted to him. According to the petitioner, he is not in possession of any piece of land out of 42 kanals 3 marls as well as 23.17 standard kanals. The respondents in their reply affidavit have, inter alia, averred that 42 kanals 3 marlas of land continues to be in possession of the petitioner, as per the revenue records as such, there is no question of putting him in possession of 23.17 standard kanals of land allotted to him in view of the revocation of consolidation. In order to put an end to the controversy raised in the present writ petitions, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hamirpur is appointed as Local Commissioner to give his report on the following points: (i) Whether the petitioner is in possession of any piece of land out of 42 kanals 3 marlas and/or 23.17 standard kanals? (ii) If the petitioner is not in possession of any portion of these lands who are in possession thereof and in which capacity? Whether they were put in possession as a result of consolidation proceedings or otherwise? The Local Commissioner will give his report within a period of six weeks. His fee is fixed at Rs. 5,000/- which will be paid to him on the spot by the petitioner. The parties are at liberty to supply the certified copies of the documents relating to the controversy in question. The Local Commissioner will give advance notice to the petitioner or his learned counsel as well as to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Hamirpur for his visit on the spot.” 3. Thereafter, learned Single Judge passed the following order on 10.3.2004: “When this case was taken up today, learned counsel for the parties stated that report of the SDM Hamirpur is there on the file. It has been examined, while hearing the case further. A perusal of the said report suggests that no finality is attached to the consolidation proceedings under Section 30 (2) of the HP Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971. Alongwith the report of the SDM, annexures are also attached. It has been examined, while hearing the case further. A perusal of the said report suggests that no finality is attached to the consolidation proceedings under Section 30 (2) of the HP Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971. Alongwith the report of the SDM, annexures are also attached. Fact remains that after revocation of consolidation proceedings, status quo ante as it existed prior to the initiation of these proceedings stood restored. In these circumstances, SDM Hamirpur is directed to report as to how the land which was admittedly owned by the petitioners and which matter had been set at rest in civil litigation is to be restored and how the area of such land is to be made good? He will also report as to how the persons other than the petitioner claim possession over the land which was initially owned by the petitioner and what is the effect of revocation of the consolidation operations in the village. Let needful be done by 15.4.2004 and report submitted by SDM. List thereafter. Parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the SDM Hamirpur alongwith the certified copy of this order on 20.3.2004. Copy dasti.” 4. Learned Single Judge passed the following orders on 14.10.2004 and 26.10.2004: 14.10.2004: “In terms of the orders passed by this Court, report has been submitted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hamirpur. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties present, both the report, as well as record of the writ petition has been examined. Petitioner is making a grievance that he was the owner of the land measuring 42.3 Kanals. During consolidation, he was allotted 23.17 standard kanals. Though he has projected in the writ petition that he is no in possession of either of the two areas. However, as per report of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hamirpur, received in the Court in the month of September 2003, out of the area measuring 42.3 Kanals, petitioner is in possession of 5 Kanals 18 Marlas. Out of the area of 23 Kanals 17 marlas allotted to him during the consolidation proceedings, he is in physical possession of 3 Kanals 17 marlas in standard Karams. Out of the area of 23 Kanals 17 marlas allotted to him during the consolidation proceedings, he is in physical possession of 3 Kanals 17 marlas in standard Karams. In the aforesaid background, case of the petitioner is that on the one hand, he has been deprived of the land owned by him at the time of consolidation and on the other hand, he is also deprived of the land allotted to him during the course of consolidation proceedings, whereas stand of the respondents on the other hand, is that in the year 1994, the village was de-notified for consolidation purposes under the provisions of HP Holdings (Consolidation and prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971. Sum and substance of the pleadings of the parties and claim of the petitioner is that he is neither in possession of the land which originally belonged to him at the time of notifying the village for consolidation, nor is he in possession of the land allotted to him during the course of consolidation. Irrespective of the fact whether the village is covered for the purpose of consolidation or not, petitioner cannot be deprived of his property by respondents and for that purpose by any other person, including a private party. Either possession of the land which was originally owned by him measuring 42.3 Kanals is to be restored to him or the area allotted to him i.e. 23.17 standard kanals during consolidation, is to be restored to him. It is the bounden duty of the authorities under the aforesaid Act to ensure that by acts of anyone of them, petitioner is not deprived of his property. Learned Advocate general stated that while following letter of law, petitioner has to be not only allotted, but put into possession of the land allotted to him during the consolidation proceedings and for carrying out the purpose of consolidation, authorities have been constituted under the Act. He submitted that sometime may be given to him to examine the matter to see how admissible relief in accordance with law can be granted to the petitioner. Prayer allowed. List this case on 26.10.2004, alongwith CWP No. 1333 of 2001. He submitted that sometime may be given to him to examine the matter to see how admissible relief in accordance with law can be granted to the petitioner. Prayer allowed. List this case on 26.10.2004, alongwith CWP No. 1333 of 2001. On this date, Secretary (Revenue) and Director consolidation will remain present alongwith the original record of this case, with a view to ensure that how legitimate grievance of the petitioner, if any, can be met with by the functionaries of the State who notified the village for consolidation. A duly authenticated copy of this order by the Court Secretary of the court, will be made available to the learned counsel for the parties by 15.10.2004. 26.10.2004 Shri Chandel, learned Advocate General, on instructions from the officers who are present in Court, stated that proceedings under the HP Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 were revoked earlier from the stage of formulation of the Scheme. He further stated, also on instructions, that because of pendency of this writ petition, respondents could not proceed further to takeup the consolidation proceedings to the logical end. According to Mr. Chandel, his clients have now decided to start consolidation proceedings after formulation of the Scheme in terms of the order dated 30.4.1994, passed by Director Consolidation, HP, exercising the power of the State Government under Section 54 of the Act supra, in case No. 756/1986, titled as Piar Chand and others versus Subar alias Subhash Chand. He further stated that while preparing fresh Scheme, his clients shall obtain “no objection” of all the right holders of the village for preparing the Scheme in terms of the order dated 30.4.1994 supra. Let no objection from all the right holders of the villagers of village Bhater Chimbian, Tappa Bajuri, Distt. Hamirpur, be placed on record alongwith affidavit of Director, Consolidation, by or before 31.12.2004. List this case in the first week of January, 2005 alongwith CWP No. 1333 of 2001, for further proceedings. In his affidavit, Director shall also state as to within how much minimum time frame, the entire process will be completed by the department.” 5. In sequel to order dated 26.10.2004, the Director Consolidation filed affidavit of compliance. Operative portion of the affidavit reads as under: “(i) The petitioner can again be delivered possession of Khasra numbers as per decree sheet on spot in respect of whole Khasra Numbers viz. In sequel to order dated 26.10.2004, the Director Consolidation filed affidavit of compliance. Operative portion of the affidavit reads as under: “(i) The petitioner can again be delivered possession of Khasra numbers as per decree sheet on spot in respect of whole Khasra Numbers viz. 183, 287, 380, 640, 1099, 751, 547, 782, 756, 908, 1327/278, 1335/915, 1328/278, 914, 1329/278, 1339/915, 464, 468, 480, 485, 532, 606, 763, 708, 892, 894, 895, 957, 958, 1066, 274, 465, 168, 712, 166, 169, 171, 184, 333, 381, 385, 508, 548, 612, 630, 635, 644, 651, 785, 868, 872, 962, 963, 1025, 1041, 1077, 1180/388, 710, 786, 1219/859, 1229/955, 1164/182, 1172/321, 386, 1195/528, 1346/974, 1067, 1163/182, 219, 1173/321, 1196/528, 1346/974, 1067, 1163/182, 219, 1173/321, 1196/528, 1220/850, 1353/318, 690, 1345/974, 1352/318, 1181/388, 1230/955, 1160/87, 761, 956, 688, 819, 1159/87 and 1158/87, Kita 85, measuring 36 Kanals 6 Marlas. (ii) In so far as the question of delivering of possession of land in Khewat No. 19 and 25, in which the petitioner has joint share with other co-owners in Khasra Numbers 924, 1350/1100, 1349/1100, 965, 1351, 1100, 359, 360, 1007 and 1109, Kita-9, measuring 11 Kanals 19 Marlas in which the petitioner’s share is ½ i.e. 6 Kanal. It is submitted that the petitioner has to get these Khasra Numbers partitioned under HP Land Revenue Act and thereafter, the possession can be delivered.” 6. Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, agreed that the petitioner will be satisfied if sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of para 5 of the affidavit, as reproduced hereinabove, are implemented in its entirety. In view of this, the writ petition was disposed of on 27.6.2007 and the respondents were directed to implement within 8 weeks. Thereafter, petitioner was put in possession on 16.10.2007 vide Rapat Rojnamcha No.46 Annexure A-4 of the supplementary affidavit dated 22.4.2015. The possession of the left out area was delivered to the petitioner on 17.10.2007 vide Rapat Rojnamcha No.47 dated 17.10.2007 as per Annexure A-5. The exchange of land took place between the parties vide Rapat Rojnamcha No.257 dated 25.3.2008 as per Annexure A-6. However, fact of the matter is that respondents No. 4 to 10 filed LPA No. 137/2010 against the judgment dated 27.6.2007 on the ground that they were not made party in the present petition. 7. The exchange of land took place between the parties vide Rapat Rojnamcha No.257 dated 25.3.2008 as per Annexure A-6. However, fact of the matter is that respondents No. 4 to 10 filed LPA No. 137/2010 against the judgment dated 27.6.2007 on the ground that they were not made party in the present petition. 7. It would be apt at this stage to note that private respondents had also filed CWP No.4915/2009. It was disposed of by the learned Division Bench by giving opportunity to respondents No.4 to 10 to file an appeal instead of a writ petition. The Division Bench vide judgment dated 12.12.2011 set aside the judgment dated 27.6.2007 and remanded the matter back to this Court. 8. Respondents No.4 to 10 have filed detailed reply, to which rejoinder has also been filed by the petitioner. Sur-rejoinder has also been filed by respondents No. 4 to 10. 9. Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate has vehemently argued that private respondents knew throughout about the proceedings of this petition and were also aware of the factum of land being delivered to the petitioner vide Annexures A-4, A-5 and A-6 of the supplementary affidavit dated 22.4.2015. He then contended that his client could not be deprived of his property during consolidation proceedings. 10. Mr. R. K. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate has strenuously argued that petitioners were not taking physical possession of the land in question. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, including Mr. Parmod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, at length. 12. Petitioner had filed civil suit Nos. 423/70/62 of 1977 and 382/78. These civil suits were decreed by the trial court on 27.1.1981 and the appeals filed against the judgment and decree dated 27.1.1981 were dismissed by the first appellate court on 1.6.1981. The Regular Second Appeals No. 63/81 and 65/81 filed against the judgment and decree dated 1.6.1981 rendered by the first appellate court were also dismissed by this Court on 1.12.1989. The consolidation proceedings were commenced in the year 1981. However, petitioner was neither put in physical possession nor he was compensated. Case of the petitioner precisely is that his land measuring 42 kanals 3 marlas was allotted to other right holders and in lieu thereof he was allotted the land measuring 23.17 standard kanals. The consolidation proceedings were commenced in the year 1981. However, petitioner was neither put in physical possession nor he was compensated. Case of the petitioner precisely is that his land measuring 42 kanals 3 marlas was allotted to other right holders and in lieu thereof he was allotted the land measuring 23.17 standard kanals. His grievance is that though the possession of 42 kanals 3 marlas allotted to the right holders was taken over by them, yet he was never put in possession for 23.17 standard kanals of land, which was allotted to him. Rather, he was not put in possession of any piece of land out of 42 kanals 3 marlas as well as 23.17 standard kanals. This Court on 22.4.2003 appointed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hamirpur as Local Commissioner to give his report on the following points: (i) Whether the petitioner is in possession of any piece of land out of 42 kanals 3 marlas and/or 23.17 standard kanals? (ii) If the petitioner is not in possession of any portion of these lands who are in possession thereof and in which capacity? Whether they were put in possession as a result of consolidation proceedings or otherwise? 13. This Court on 10.3.2004 examined the report of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hamirpur. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hamirpur was directed to report as to how the land, which was admittedly owned by the petitioners and which matter had been set at rest in civil litigation was to be restored and how the area of such land was to be made good. He was also directed to report as to how the persons other than the petitioner claim possession over the land which was initially owned by the petitioner and what was the effect of revocation of the consolidation operations in the village. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hamirpur submitted the report. According to the report of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hamirpur, out of the area measuring 42.3. kanals, petitioner was in possession of 5 kanals 18 marlas and out of the area of 23 kanals 17 marlas allotted to him during the consolidation proceedings, he was in physical possession of 3 kanals 2 marlas in standard karams. According to the report of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hamirpur, out of the area measuring 42.3. kanals, petitioner was in possession of 5 kanals 18 marlas and out of the area of 23 kanals 17 marlas allotted to him during the consolidation proceedings, he was in physical possession of 3 kanals 2 marlas in standard karams. Fact of the matter is that petitioner was deprived of the land owned by him at the time of consolidation and on the other hand, he was also deprived of the land allotted to him during the course of consolidation proceedings. This Court observed on 14.10.2004 that either the possession of the land which was originally owned by him measuring 42.3 kanals was to be restored to him or the area allotted to him, i.e. 23.17 standard kanals during consolidation was to be restored to him. In view of this development, the matter was ordered to be listed on 26.10.2004. According to the statement made by the learned Advocate General, State has decided to start consolidation proceedings after formulation of the scheme in terms of order dated 30.4.1994 passed by the Director Consolidation, H.P. He also stated that while preparing fresh scheme, State shall obtain “no objection” of all the right holders of the village for preparing the scheme in terms of order dated 30.4.1994. Thereafter, the Director Consolidation filed an affidavit, as noticed hereinabove, on 28.12.2004. 14. Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate, had agreed to the proposal of sub-clause (i) and sub-clause (ii) of para 5 of the affidavit dated 28.12.2014 and the petitioner was put in possession of the property on 16.10.2007, 17.10.2007 and 25.3.2008. Complete justice has been done to the petitioner by putting him in physical possession of the property. Since he was deprived of earlier land measuring 42.3 kanals and during consolidation, he was allowed 23.17 kanals of land. He was in possession of 5 kanals 18 marlas out of 42.3 kanals and out of 23.17 kanals, he was in physical possession of only 3 kanals 17 marlas in standard karams. Petitioner was deprived of his property without any authority of law. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hamripur has submitted reports, according to which the correct position on the spot was reflected and which led to passing of various orders and ultimately handing over of physical possession of the land to the petitioner. Petitioner was deprived of his property without any authority of law. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hamripur has submitted reports, according to which the correct position on the spot was reflected and which led to passing of various orders and ultimately handing over of physical possession of the land to the petitioner. Respondents No.4 to 10 throughout knew about the proceedings but has only preferred CWP No. 4915/2009, which was withdrawn with liberty reserved to file LPA No. 137/2010. Petitioner has been put in possession of land on 16.10.2007, 17.10.2007 and 25.3.2008 and the petition was filed only in the year 2009. 15. It is evident from the order dated 26.10.2004 that Consolidation Officer, Hamirpur was asked to obtain “no objection” from all the right holders of the village while preparing fresh scheme. The consolidation Officer, Hamirpur along with his staff visited the village on 18.11.2004. 24 Right holders who were duly informed were present along with Pradhan and Ward Punch of the village. Statements of these right holders and the Pradhan were recorded. Few of the right holders stated that they were still in possession of the land which was with them prior to consolidation. The Consolidation Officer, Hamirpur also noticed on the spot that one group was opposing the consolidation proceedings and the second group consisting of four land owners including the petitioner and his brother were agreeable to consolidation. There is also a reference in the affidavit that land measuring 42.6 kanals was decreed in favour of the petitioner in case No. 423/1970 decided on 27.1.1981 rendered by the learned Civil Judge, Hamirpur and in compliance to the decree, mutation Nos. 157, 158 and 159 were attested in favour of the petitioner. Before the attestation of mutations, rapat Nos. 133, 353 and 301 were entered in the rojnamcha Waqyati and physical as well as symbolic possession was delivered to the petitioner and consequently mutations were attested on 29.5.1986 and 2.9.1987, respectively. It is in these circumstances the Director Consolidation has suggested the relief which could be granted to the petitioner as per sub-clause (i) and sub-clause (ii) of para 5 of the affidavit dated 28.12.2014. 16. Accordingly, in view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, the present writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. No costs.