LPA No.670 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.670 of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 05, 2011 Balwant and others .....APPELLANTS Versus State of Haryana and another ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL --- Present: None for the appellants. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the order dated 09.11.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No.9219 of 2009) filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 12.3.2008 passed by the Director, Consolidation, Haryana, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), has been dismissed. This appeal is barred by limitation as along with the appeal the appellants have filed an application (CM No.1753 of 2011) for condonation of 39 days of delay in filing the appeal. Since no one has put in appearance on behalf of the appellants despite the case having been called twice, in absence of the appellants or LPA No.670 of 2011 (O&M) -2- their counsel and without taking the said delay into consideration, we have gone on the merits of the case as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. In the present case, vide order dated 12.3.2008, the Director, Consolidation, on a petition under Section 42 of the Act filed by respondent No.2, provided him two karam passage to his holding through Killa No.210//11 as no passage was provided to his holding during the consolidation proceedings. The said order was challenged by the appellants in the aforesaid writ petition on the ground that before passing the said order, no notice was served to them, in spite of the fact that they were in possession of Killa No.210//11. The learned Single Judge did not accept the contention of the appellants while coming to the conclusion that the appellants have no right, title, possession or interest in Killa No.210//11, therefore, they were not entitled to notice and opportunity of hearing before the Director, Consolidation. It is undisputed position that the title of the aforesaid Killa No.210//11 vests in one Mahender Singh. The appellants had never purchased the said Killa number from Mahender Singh. It is the case of the appellants that they had purchased some agricultural land from Manjit Singh and Jagjit Singh sons of Mahender Singh and Mahender Singh had given an affidavit to them transferring the possession of Killa No.210//11 in their favour. On the basis of the said affidavit, they were claiming possession of the said Killa number. Though it is admitted position that neither in the revenue record the appellants are recorded as owners nor in possession of the said Killa number. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly LPA No.670 of 2011 (O&M) -3- not interfered with the order passed by the Director, Consolidation because the appellants are having no locus standi to challenge the said order on the ground that they were not given an opportunity of hearing. Once it is the factual and admitted position that the appellants are not the owners of the said Killa number from which the passage was provided to respondent No.2, then they cannot be deemed to be in possession without any entry to this effect in the revenue record. Merely on the basis of the affidavit, they were not entitled to any notice by the Director, Consolidation. A perusal of the order of the Director, Consolidation clearly reveals that no passage was provided to the Kurra of respondent No.2 during the consolidation. It has been held that in this regard a mistake was committed. It is well settled that during the consolidation every holder of the land is entitled to the passage to his land. Under Section 42 of the Act, the Director, Consolidation is within his jurisdiction to provide passage to the owner of a holding, who, by mistake, had not been provided passage to his holding during the consolidation proceedings. Thus, we do not find any illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge as well as the Director, Consolidation. No merits. Dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE April 05, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) vkg JUDGE