JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

Through the instant petition, the petitioners claim relief for the rescinding of consolidation scheme, as carried in Annexure P-2, besides they also pray for the quashing of the order, drawn on 23.1.2019, as carried in Annexure P-4, whereby the petitioners' application for rescinding of consolidation scheme (supra), became dismissed.

Factual background

2. The consolidation department had started the consolidation operations in the village concerned, on the basis of jamabandi for the year 2001-2002. Thereafter, vide resolution dated 18.2.2005, equal value of the entire land was assessed. Ultimately on 31.3.2005, the draft consolidation scheme was published, and, where after it became finalized by the consolidation officer concerned. Aggrieved from the finalized consolidation scheme, the petitioners herein along with other land holders of the village concerned, preferred a petition under Section 42 of the Prevention from Fragmentation of Land Holding and Consolidation Act , before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala Cantt hence seeking the setting aside of the finalized consolidation scheme, prepared on 31.3.2005, by the Consolidation Officer, Karnal, and, for preparing it fresh after giving a proper opportunity of hearing to the land holders of the village concerned. However, vide order dated 23.1.2019, the petition (supra) was dismissed by the authority concerned. Hence, the present petition.

Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended with much vigour, before this Court that, at the time of consolidation operations, the consolidation authorities concerned, have not borne in mind, the relevant parameters appertaining to (a) parity or equivalence of monetary value(s) of the lands subjected to consolidation; (b) nor did bear in mind, the equivalence(s) of distribution of lands of all categories amongst the land owners concerned. He further submits, that prior to the finalization of the consolidation scheme, no notice became served, upon the petitioners. Therefore, the absence of an apposite prior notice becoming served, upon the petitioners concerned, has resulted in the petitioners rather becoming condemned unheard.

4. As above stated, through the drawing of the impugned order, the petitioners' claim was rejected. The reasons, as became set-forth in the impugned order, are carried in the relevant portion of paragraph 5 of the order (supra), paragraph whereof becomes extracted hereinafter.

"I have heard the argument of learned counsels for the parties and perused the facts available on the case file. In the present case the counsel for the petitioners and respondent No. 4 to 11 have mainly stated in their argument that the procedure of consolidation has not completed as per rule in the village and the opportunity to submit their objection to the proprietors has not been granted. Although as per the facts available on the file the value of entire area in the village Gaganpur has been assessed with the consent of the proprietors of the village vide resolution No. 4 dated 14.1.2005 by the Consolidation Officer and the mustri munadi in the village for acceptance of the value assessed for the area was conducted vide resolution No. 6 dated 16.2.2005 and vide resolution No. 7 dated 18.2.2005 the value has been accepted with the consent of the proprietors. Prior to publication of consolidation scheme the mustri munadi got conducted in the village vide resolution No. 10 dated 22.3.2005. At the time of publication of schem