The judgment emphasizes the importance of judicial discipline and the binding nature of higher court judgments.

JUDGMENT :

Dev Darshan Sud, J.

The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi exercising powers under Section 54 of H.P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971, upholding the order dated 1.09.1995 passed in case No.66 of 1986 by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation of Holdings, Hamirpur. The order proceeds that this is the adjudication in compliance to the directions issued by this Court in CMPMO No.434 of 2010, dated 14.3.2011. The order passed by this Court was detailed, noticing that the petitioner herein had challenged the order dated 1.9.1995 of the Settlement Commissioner in appeal which was partly allowed by the Additional director Consolidation of Holdings on 21.9.2000 wherein 18 marlas of land was allotted to the petitioner. In appeal preferred by the second respondent Brahm Dass before Director Consolidation of Holdings, was dismissed on 3.8.2001. Respondent No.2 filed CWP No.1197 of 2001 against the aforesaid orders dated 3.8.2001, 21.9.2000 and the petitioner filed CWP No.19 of 2002 in which both these orders dated 3.8.2001, 21.9.2000 as also order dated 1.9.1995 were assailed. Both these writ petitions were disposed by this Court by a common judgment by me vide judgment dated 15.3.2010 holding: "This is not a satisfactory way of adjudicating a lis. Needless to say that application of mind has to be by the authority adjudicating and not by anybody else. Even if he has to agree with the reasons given by the authority subordinate to him, there must be some indication in the order as to how and on what grounds the order is being upheld which implies that the authority must indicate with certainty and clarity that the grounds set out or points urged before him for varying the order are not made out. Merely writing "the Additional Director, consolidation of Holdings has decided the case after visiting the spot and he has given detailed reasons for coming to the conclusion" do not constitute reasons but is pre judgmental and not sufficient to meet the requirements of law. In these circumstances, both these writ petitions are allowed. The impugned order of the Director Consolidation in both the writ petitions is quashed and set aside. The Statutory Authority under Section 54 of the Act as aforesaid is directed to take up the case again for decision afresh in accordance with law. This order does not in any manner pronounce on the merits of the respective contention of the parties as urged before the Director as also on facts before this Court as I have only decided on the question of legality of the order. Parties shall be free to urge and put forth their respective cases before the Director of Consolidation to show whether the petition is maintainable or the order challenged can be sustained in law. Parties shall appear before the Director of Consolidation on 7.4.2010. Both the writ petitions are disposed of."

2. Civil revision No. 224 of 2000 was instituted by the petitioner Gain Chand against the orders dated 23.5.2000 passed by the learned Sub Judge (II), Hamirpur in execution petition No.54 of 1993 rejecting the application of decree holder for passing final decree in Civil Suit No.36 of 1993. In this revision petition which was decided on 5th July,2010, the order passed by the learned Executing Court was set aside with the direction that the learned Executing Court will proceed with the execution petition in accordance with law. In CMPMO No. 434 of 2010 which was decided by this Court on 14.3.2011, this Court notices that there was a positive direction to the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi in the order dated 21.10.2010 to decide the matter afresh and to consider all other aspect including the maintainability of the petition. This Court had observed that the order has not been complied with in pursuance to the directions issued vide order dated 15th July, 2010 and the said order is more in breach than compliance. The order notices that the petitioner had