C.W.P. No.158 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.158 of 1992 Date of Decision : 25.04.2011 Manphool …Petitioner Versus The Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI -.- Present: Mr. L.N. Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. *** AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed against the order dated 08.06.1990 (Annexure P-1) dismissing the application of the petitioner for providing a path. The application has been rejected on the ground that repartition proceedings were published in the village on 24.03.1960 where as the present petition has been filed on 02.02.1990 i.e. after 30 years. It has further been noticed that the petitioner was not C.W.P. No.158 of 1992 -2- vigilant when he purchased the land in dispute and after 30 years the said petition would not lie. Be that as it may, salient question is whether the petitioner has a path to his land. Even if the application has been delayed yet I find that when the repartition proceedings were going on the petitioner was a tenant of the land in dispute and it was only after that it was declared surplus area and the petitioner was allotted the same on 29.09.1988 and he paid the installments and became the owner. Prior to that there was no question of providing him a separate path. Consequently, the rejection of the application on the ground of limitation or on the ground that petitioner was not vigilant does not arise in the circumstances of the case. It must be noticed that none appears for the respondents and no reply has been filed even on service. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 08.06.1990 is set aside. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter would have to be in normal course is remanded to the Director, Consolidation of Holdings. However, he informs me that now the powers under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 have been devolved upon the Commissioner of the concerned Division. In the circumstances, the matter is remanded to the C.W.P. No.158 of 1992 -3- learned Commissioner, Hisar Division for fresh decision of the application of the petitioner on merits. The petitioner through counsel is directed to appear before the learned Commissioner on 01.06.2011. Since the respondents No.2 to 12 are not present the learned Commissioner shall serve fresh notices on them before passing the order. ( AJAY TEWARI ) April 25, 2011 JUDGE ashish