Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.—In consolidation proceedings, the land falling in Khasra Nos. 656, 657, 660 and 661 had been allotted to Smt. Meeto (second respondent), Smt Jeeto (third respondent) and Smt, Hukami Kabul Singh and Hussana had been allotted land jointly in Khasra Nos. 661 and 66. In addition thereto, Khasra No 665 had been allotted to Hussana and Khasra No 659 to Kabul Singh. The value of khasra No. 69 allotted to Kabul Singh and Khasra No. 660 allotted to aforesaid three women was the same. Smt Meeto, Smt. Jeeto and Smt. Hukami had filed revision petition under section 54 of H.P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971, (hereinafter for short the ‘Act’), before the Additional Director of Consolidation exercising the powers of State Government, which was registered as case No. 245/95. In their revision petition, they had stated that allotment of Khasra No 659 in favour of Kabul Singh petitioner herein, was against the spirit of consolidation and as a result thereof’ the land allotted to them had lost its compactness.

2. Notice of the revision was sent to Kabul Singh and Hussana, The Additional Director of Consolidation decided the revision petition on 17-8-1996 in the absence of Kabul Singh and Hussana by observing that despite service of summons, both the persons were not present and they were proceeded ex-parte. Resultantly, the revision petition was allowed and Khasra No, 659 was allotted in favour of the aforesaid women Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner Kabul Singh moved an application under Order 9, Rule 13 rea with 151 C.P.C. for setting aside the exparte order dated 17-8-1996. He alleged that he was not afforded an opportunity and he was never personally served with the relevant summons issued by the Additional Director of Consolidation The Additional Director of Consolidation vide order dated 3-7-1997 (Annexure P-3) rejected the application on the ground that there is no provision of recalling and reviewing the orders passed by the consolidation authorities in the Consolidation Act This observation was made on the basis of judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Deep Chand v. Additional Director, Consolidation, AIR 1964 Punj 250. Kabul Singh petitioner has challenged the impugned order (Annexure P-3) by way of the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, prating for quashing and setting aside the same.

3. After notice, reply-affidavits were filed by Additional Director of Consolidation, Smt. Meeto and Smt. Jeeto. In the grounds of petition, the petitioner has submitted that the notice issued to him on the revision petition by the Additional Director of Consolidation was never served upon him and the 1st respondent proceeded to decide the case under assumptions that: the notice was duly served upon the petitioner. He has placed on record the copy of the notice (Annexure P-2) Issued to him. He alleged that as soon as the petitioner came to know about the ex-parte order passed by the 1st respondent, he immediately filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. stating therein that the petitioner was not duly served and also not heard, hence the ex-parte order dated 17-8-1996 be set-aside.

4. The parties were heard on the application at length and the order was reserved but no date was given for pronouncement of the order. The petitioner at regular intervals, made enquiries for ascertaining the fact whether the order on his application had been passed but always told by the officials of the 1st respondent that the order on his application has not been passed. He alleged that to his utter surprise, one copy of the caveat petition filed by second and third respondents was served upon him through registered letter dated 8-7-1997 from which the petitioner came to know that the impugned order was passed by the 1st respondent on 3-7-1997. He approached the registry of the 1st respondent to enquire about the fate of his case and at that stage it was