CWP No.11861 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH ***** CWP No.11861 of 2009 Date of Decision: 21.03.2011 Jagdish and Anr. … Petitioners Versus The Director Consolidation Haryana and Ors. … Respondents ***** CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. BS Saini, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. R.S. Hooda, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 4. ***** AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 03.02.2009 (Annexure P-5), passed by the Director Consolidation, Haryana. It appears that the respondents No.2 to 4 filed an application under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short, 'the Act') asking the authorities to provide a path to connect their land detailed in site plan (Annexure P-1). Vide impugned order, land has been provided for path after noticing that during consolidation in the village in the year 1957-58, the scheme did not provide a path to connect the land of the respondents. It has also been noticed that the respondents have been using a path for ingress and egress in an arrangement and, therefore, the same land be converted into a path. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the CWP No.11861 of 2009 -2- application is belated and, therefore, no notice of the same may be taken. In consideration of the contention of the learned counsel, it has been held in the impugned order that at the time when consolidation scheme was framed, path was not provided to connect the land of respondents No.2 to 4. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that path cannot be denied to connect the land owned by a person, as the land would be rendered useless. It cannot be put to agricultural or other use if it is not connected to the road. Therefore, no notice of the objection can be taken. On the second count learned counsel contends that the land given by respondents No.2 to 4 in lieu of land consumed for carving out the path is under mortgage. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has pointed out that the land is free of charge and has been released from mortgage, therefore, would be free to be given in lieu of land that is being utilized for use as a path. In the face of the stand of learned counsel appearing for the respondents, the petitioners cannot succeed on the second argument addressed. In view of the above, no ground for interference is made out. Petition dismissed. MARCH 21, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Rajan JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?