Mr. Adarsh Jain, for the petitioners.Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondent No.1.Mr. Abhimanyu Jangra, for Mr. Rajesh Lamba, for respondent No.2.Mr. R. S. Budhwar, for respondents No.3 and 4.
East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948) – Order of Director Consolidation challenged beyond a period of 11 years without there being any explanation whatsoever for the delay in approaching the said authority – Assertion has also been made that the Gram Panchayat has been impleaded as a party in the appeal for the first time without the Gram Panchayat being a party at the initial stage when the application was filed leading to the passing of the order – Said order being based upon the statement of a person who was not authorized to make such a statement on behalf of the Gram Panchayat irrespective of the fact that he was Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat – We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the case back.
read here 2022 PLRonline 1370
read here 2022 PLRonline 1370
![[SC] Bona fide need – Act of reletting the accommodation after getting it vacated for personal need in the year 1980 cannot defeat the bona fide need of the landlord for the year 1987](https://supremecourtonline.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/pexels-photo-5987164-350x250.jpeg)