JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 04.08.2017 (herein after referred to as the impugned order ) passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division, H.P., whereby he quashed the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, Hamirpur. 2. Unfortunately, this is for the second time that the order passed by the said authority has been assailed and to say the least the impugned order again is not sustainable for more than one reason. 3. Records of the case reveals that the case was listed on 05.05.2017, on which date Shri Sanjay Kumar, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the respondent therein (petitioner herein) and the case was fixed for arguments on 27.06.2017. 4. On 27.06.2017, the respondent (petitioner herein) alongwith his counsel put in appearance, however, in place of Shri Sanjay Kumar one Shri Dinesh Sharma, Advocate, appeared as vice counsel and requested for time to file written statement, which was allowed and the petitioner was directed to file his written statement within three days and the case was ordered to be listed for pronouncement of order on 04.08.2017. 5. Unfortunately, in the meanwhile, the predecessorin-interest of the petitioners, Prakash Singh died on 08.07.2017 after being admitted in hospital for a number of days. Therefore, the written arguments on behalf of the petitioner could not be filed. But, surprisingly, the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi in the impugned order makes its specific note that respondent (petitioner herein) had submitted written arguments, which were given due credence as is evident from para-3 of the order, which reads thus:- 3. The matter was accordingly taken up on 31.01.2017. Thereafter the case was fixed on different dates. Adequate time was given to both the parties to address their arguments. Both the Ld. Counsels were heard. From respondent written arguments were given, which have been give due credence. 6. That apart, while concluding, the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, specifically notes that the orders have been announced in the open Court in presence of the parties, whereas the order sheet of the said date i.e. 04.08.2017 clearly states that there was none present on behalf of the petitioner and the reason for the same was obvious as the respondent (petitioner herein) Parkash Singh, who is predecessor-ininterest of the present petitioners had already died by that time. 7. 7. Thus, it stands fully established that the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, is not at all based on the record and even otherwise has been passed without application of the mind or else the findings as noted above would not have found their way in the impugned order. 8. Apart from above, since the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners Parkash Singh had already died before the pronouncement of the order, as earlier to that he was not in a position to file the written arguments as he was admitted in hospital, I am of the firm view that there has been violation of principle of natural justice as the petitioners never got a fair chance of presenting their case. 9. Accordingly without going into the merits of the case, the impugned order is set aside and the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division, is directed to decide the petition afresh after affording opportunity to the petitioners to file their written arguments and thereafter decide the same as expeditiously as possible in not event later than 31st March, 2019. Parties through their respective counsel to appear before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, on 29.10.2018. 10. Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.