IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.911 of 2011 Date of decision: 23.05.2011 Jiwani and another …..Appellants versus Commissioner Hissar Divison Hisar and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.Mani Ram Verma, Advocate for the appellants Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This appeal has been filed against an order dated 28.4.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing CWP No.5637 of 2011, filed by the appellants. As per record, respondent Nos.2 to 10 filed an application under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (in short, the Act), by stating that to their tak, at the time of consolidation proceedings, no path was provided. They were passing through the land of somebody else and now that land holders had stopped their access through his land, as such, they be provided with a similar passage. The Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar (exercising the powers of Director Consolidation) under Section 42 of the Act, allowed that application by observing as under:- “After hearing the applicants considering the statement of Halqa Patwari and after perusing the facts on record and after reading the rulings produced before me, I have come to LPA No.911 of 2011 the conclusion that as per Scheme every kurah was to be provided path-way. No path-way was provided to the land of the applicants and Scheme has been violated. Giving path-way is a basic right. It is duty of the Department to make correction in the mistake done during consolidation. Therefore, it is ordered that path-way be given to the land of the applicants in the East of khasra No.565/6/2 min 2 Karam, West 2 Karam, South 25 Karam, North 25 Karam 0K-6M and in the East of Khasra No.564 Killa No.10/2 2 Karam, West 2 Karam, North 40 Karam, South 40 Karam 0K-09M total measuring 0K-15 M and in lieu of that LRs of respondent No.1 be given land measuring 0K-16M from the land of the applicants comprised in Khasra No.564/9/2/1 East 4 Karam, West 3 Karam, South 40 Karam, North 40 Karam. Rulings produced on behalf of LRs of respondent No.1 are not applicable in the present case facts being different. Therefore, further proceedings be recorded in the Revenue Record.” The said order was challenged by filing a writ petition, which has been dismissed vide the impugned order. By making reference to the site plan (P4), counsel for the appellants states that the appellants are ready to give path to the respondents through their land falling in khasra Nos.1 and 10, whereas, vide the order, under challenge, path has been provided through land falling in khasra Nos.6 and 10. We feel that the proposal now made by the appellants is not viable and convenient. If implemented, the land of the appellants will also be bifurcated into two parts and the respondents, to enter their land, will have to cover much more distance than the one which they are supposed to 2 LPA No.911 of 2011 cover with the passage provided vide the impugned order. The Court is convinced that the path provided by the Director Consolidation is perfectly justified and similar. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 23.05.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge 3