CWP No.16325 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 16325 of 2010 Date of Decision: December 16, 2011 Radhey Shyam and others. . ..Petitioners Versus Commisisoner, Gurgaon Range, Gurgaon and another. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH. Present: Mr.Manjeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana, for respondent No.1. Mr. R.D. Yadav, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Paramjeet Singh, J. The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 28.07.2010 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Commissioner, exercising the power of Director, under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), whereby path has been provided to Smt. Tarawati (respondent No.2). The brief facts of the case are that Smt. Tarawati CWP No.16325 of 2010 2 (respondent No.2) filed an application under Section 42 of the Act, claiming that no rasta (passage) was provided to Khasra No. 52//10/2, 53//6/2, 7/2 and 8/2, at the time of consolidation. Respondent No.2 is facing the difficulty in cultivating her fields. It is mentioned in the application that rasta bearing Khasra No. 593 ends at Killa No. 52//11 which is owned and possessed by the petitioners. After considering the application, the Director extended the passage for access to Khasra No. 52//10/2. The case set up by the petitioners is that since they have constructed their houses, therefore, rasta should not be provided. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Perusal of Annexure P/3 Aks-shijra shows that rasta No. 593 ends upto Killa No. 52//11 (ownership of the petitioners), as a result of which, there is no access to Khasra No. 52//10/2, 53//6/2, 7/2 and 8/2, and as such, respondent No.2 is facing difficulty in cultivating these fields. To make access to Khasra No. 52//10/2, the passage has been extended to Khasra No. 52//11 only by 1 karam x 3 karam wide meaning thereby an area of 1 marla has been excluded from the area of the petitioners and in lieu of that area, they had been given 2 marlas of land adjacent to khasra No. 52//11 from adjoining khasra No. 52//10/2 (0-2). It CWP No.16325 of 2010 3 means 1 marla land has been taken away from the land of the petitioners, whereas, 2 marlas of land has been given to the petitioners out of land of private respondent No.2. As a result, the petitioners have not suffered any loss, rather, they have been given more area and the private respondent No.2 has been provided rasta. Otherwise, it would have been difficult for respondent No.2 to enter the fields for cultivation. The findings of fact have recorded by the Director, which warrant no interference. In view of the above, writ petition is devoid of merits. Dismissed. (PARAMJEET SINGH) JUDGE December 16, 2011 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkd JUDGE