IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 16566 of 2011 Date of decision:6th September, 2011 Gurcharan Singh @ Tarsem Singh .......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Ms. Meena Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Hemant Gupta, J.(Oral) The challenge in the present writ petition is the order dated 21.12.2010, passed by the Commissioner Hisar Division, Hisar, exercising the powers of Director, under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation Act 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Vide aforesaid order, the Director Consolidation has allowed the applications, filed by the respondent to provide access to Civil Writ Petition No. 16566 of 2011 his land comprising in khasra no. 145//11, 20, 21/1 measuring 14 kanals 12 marlas. It has been found that the said land has not been provided with any path during the consolidation proceedings, though, it is the requirement of the scheme that path must be provided to every holding. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two fold arguments. Firstly, that the respondent has invoked the jurisdiction under Section 42 of the Act, after gross delay and secondly, as a subsequent purchaser, he cannot seek path so as to seek amendment in the scheme in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Jaswinder Kaur and others vs. Additional Director Consolidation and others in 2003(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 131 . We do not find any merit in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 42 of the Act empowers Director of Consolidation to exercise the power to amend the scheme at any point of time. The authority under the Act has found that the respondent has not provided with any path to access his land. Such finding is supported by the site plan, produced by the learned counsel petitioner before this Court, which shows that the land of the respondent has no access except though the land falling on the southern side of his land that is land of the present petitioner. Therefore, the doctrine of necessity warrants such path. The Director, Consolidation has rightly, exercised the jurisdiction, so as to provide path to the respondents. The judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the 2 Civil Writ Petition No. 16566 of 2011 petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the aforesaid case, the subsequent purchaser has sought path in respect of scheme finalised earlier in view of the recitals of existence of path in the sale deed of his purchase of land. It was held that he cannot claim path on the basis of recitals in the sale deed regarding path. In the present case, the path is sought as of necessity. The respondent has the same rights as his vendor. The vendee is not seek any enlargement of his rights than the rights of his vendor. In view of the above, we do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the authority which may warrant any interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed. [HEMANT GUPTA] JUDGE [VIJENDER SINGH MALIK] JUDGE 6th September, 2011 Shivani Kaushik 3