CWP No.16173 of 1990 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.16173 of 1990 Date of Decision: 19.05.2011 Ant Ram ... Petitioner Versus The Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana and Ors. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. Ram Chander, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Sivia, DAG, Punjab for respondents No.1 and 2. None for respondent No.3. ***** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. Through an application filed under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for brevity, 'the Act'), one Harbhagwan son of Attar Chand sought to contend that a path had been provided through killa Nos.24/6, 15, 16, 24 and 25 but such a path was not in existence at the site. The petitioner was not a party to the proceedings but was interested in contending that the plea raised by Harbhagwan was not correct but actually a path did exist. He was interested in upholding the scheme already issued under the consolidation proceedings and what had been already established ought not to have been interfered. However, the Director, Consolidation accepted the request of the petitioner CWP No.16173 of 1990 -2- Harbhagwan as genuine and purported to act on the statement of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat that he had no objection if the path in dispute was deleted. 2. The petitioner feels aggrieved by this decision essentially on two grounds; (i) the decision of the Director was on a purported concession made by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat that the disputed path to be deleted and instead path could be provided through 24/4/2, 7, 14, 17 and 24. The petitioner would contend that the Panchayat had not passed any such resolution and did not have the authority to give away a property which was a path way well-established. Learned counsel would also state that a modification could not have been made nearly after 30 years, after the scheme was published. He relies on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in “Chet Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 1977 AIR (SC) 1494” wherein it has been held that Director or a Court cannot modify or effect a change by invoking the provision of Section 42 of the Act after nearly 30 years after the scheme. I uphold the contentions of the petitioner. 3. There is no representation on behalf of either the applicant before the Director or by the Gram Panchayat. 4. The impugned order is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. MAY 19, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE