In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ….. C.W.P. No.17848 of 2006 …. Date of decision:2.9.2009 Nihal Singh ….Petitioner v. The Joint Secretary to Govt. of Haryana, PWD and others …Respondents …. Present: Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Makkar, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondents No.1 to 5. Mr. Hari Om Attri, Advocate for respondent No.6. …. S.S. Saron, J. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 8.8.2006 (Annexure-P.5) passed by the Director, Consolidation, Haryana under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (`Act’ – for short) whereby passage has been given to the land of respondent No.6 through the land of the petitioner in Killa No.15//6 and 7. It is submitted that the petitioner had not given any consent with regard to the said land being provided for passage to the land of respondent No.6 through the land comprised towards South in Khasra Nos.15//6 and 7. In this manner, the land of the petitioner in Khasra Nos.14, 15, 16 and 17/1 towards south has been bifurcated into two parts. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier passage was provided to respondent No.6 from the land of the owner of rectangle No.14, Khasra No.5 and 1/1. Thereafter, the passage was C.W.P. No.17848 of 2006 [2] provided to the land of respondent No.6 from the land in rectangle No.15, Khasra Nos.16/1, 17/1 and 14/2 and now it has been provided from south of rectangle No.15, Khasra Nos.6 and 7. Therefore, it is submitted that the Director, Consolidation has not fully appreciated the position as it is on record. In response, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 has submitted that the petitioner being satisfied with the arrangement had given his consent for the providing of passage to the land of respondent No.6. It is after recording the consent of the petitioner that the Director, Consolidation, Haryana (respondent No.2) passed the order to the satisfaction of the petitioner. The consent given cannot now be assailed. It is further submitted that the site plan appended with the writ petition itself shows that the Director, Consolidation had passed a well reasoned order keeping in view the ingress and egress to the fields of respondent No.6 in such a manner that minimum land of the petitioner is utilized. The passage that has been granted does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. In fact, the earlier passage that was granted had utilized about 3 acres land of the petitioner while the passage now provided consumes only 2 acres of land. Therefore, it is submitted that the petition merits dismissal. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance gone through the record. Normally, where parties have given their consent to the providing of passage the same is not liable to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. However, it cannot be lost sight of the fact that in some cases the parties being illiterate or semi-literate may not be able to C.W.P. No.17848 of 2006 [3] understand the facts fully as to what has transpired and in a rush or at the heat of the moment may give their consent before authorities exercising quasi-judicial functions. In such a situation a party cannot always be left without remedy and it would be sound that where the Court is satisfied that the consent which has been given prejudices the rights of either of the parties it interferes. In the present case, a perusal of the site plan (Anexure-P.6) would show that the passage to the land of respondent No.6 which has been sanctioned through the land of the petitioner towards the south of rectangle No.15, Khasra Nos.6 and 7 would indeed bifurcate the land of the petitioner from the middle. In fact, the consolidation authorities had agreed to provide passage to the land of respondent No.6 through the land of the petitioner towards the north of land in rectangle No.15, Khasra Nos.6 and 7. However, the petitioner himself stated that a `Kotha’ and tube-well had been constructed on the north of rectangle No.15, Khasra No.6. It is, therefore, that the path was given from the south of rectangle No.15, Khasra Nos.6 and 7. This bifurcates the land of the petitioner in such a manner that he is not able to carry out his effective agricultural operations. This Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not to go into the veracity of facts and ascertain as to which would be the more suitable path for the land of respondent No.6. This indeed is the domain of the consolidation authorities who are well versed in the same and can even get reports of the Patwari and other officials as regards the nature of land and the suitable area for providing of path. As such, it would be just and expedient that the Director, Consolidation (respondent No.2) again carries out the process of finding suitable path for the land of respondent C.W.P. No.17848 of 2006 [4] No.6 and the exercise is carried out afresh on the basis of material on record. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of and the matter is remanded back to the Director, Consolidation (respondent No.2) to consider the matter afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned. The parties shall appear before the Director, Consolidation on 16.11.2009. In the meantime, till the matter is disposed of by the Director, Consolidation (respondent No.2), the parties shall maintain status quo. September 2, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp* NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes