CWP No.18521 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.18521 of 2008 Date of decision:08.10.2010 Sampuran Singh ..... Petitioner Versus Director Land Records, Punjab, Jalandhar and another ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Satbir Rathore, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Anu Pal, AAG, Punjab for respondent no.1. Mr.G.S.Nagra, Advocate for respondent no.2. ***** RAJIVE BHALLA, J.(ORAL) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 11.10.2007, passed by the Director Land Records, Punjab, Jalandhar, providing a path to the Gram Panchayat. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Gram Panchayat filed an application, under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) after a delay of 45 years. In the absence of any explanation, in the application, for this delay or any reason recorded by the Director Land Records, while condoning the delay, the impugned order is a nullity. It is also argued that though the petitioner has been compensated with alternative land, the passage provided to the Gram Panchayat has bifurcated his land. Counsel for the Gram Panchayat, however, submits that, the application filed under Section 42 of the Act, contains a cogent explanation for the delay. The Gram Panchayat was using the path 'AB' but when the CWP No.18521 of 2008 -2- petitioner threatened to block this path, the Gram Panchayat examined the revenue record and as no passage was allotted to the Gram Panchayat during consolidation, it was left with no other recourse but to file an application for providing a path. It is further submitted that the petitioner has concealed the filing of a prior civil suit, the fact that the impugned order has been implemented, the mutation has been sanctioned, alternative land has been allotted to the petitioner and the path is operational at the spot. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. It is true that the Director Land Records, has not recorded any reason for condoning delay. However, a perusal of the petition filed under Section 42 of the Act, discloses that the Gram Panchayat has furnished “sufficient cause” for this delay. The Gram Panchayat was using the path 'AB' to approach its land. The petitioner apparently raised an objection and prevented the Gram Panchayat from using this passage. The Gram Panchayat examined the revenue record and found that this path did not belong to the Gram Panchayat and that during consolidation a path had been allotted to its land. The bonafide explanation offered by the Gram Panchayat was sufficient to condone the delay. The canal authorities were required to allow a path during consolidation. The Director Land Records has rectified this error and allotted alternative land to the petitioner. The petitioner on the other hand concealed the filing of a prior civil suit, the implementation of the impugned order, the sanction of mutations, the allotment of alternative land and the fact that the path is already running at the spot. The writ petition was filed an year after the passing of the impugned order. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, it would not be CWP No.18521 of 2008 -3- appropriate to interfere with the impugned order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as substantial justice has been done, by allotting a path to the Gram Panchayat and alternative land to the petitioner. Dismissed. 08.10.2010 [ RAJIVE BHALLA ] shamsher JUDGE