C.W.P No. 478 of 1987 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 478 of 1987 (O&M) Date of decision : July 08, 2010 Shri Gurcharan Singh, ...... Petitioner (s) v. The Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab and others ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Gill, DAG Punjab for respondent No.1. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This writ petition has been filed challenging the order, dated 5.6.1986 (Annexure P-2) by which the prayer of the petitioner under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 for provision of a path was decided. The Additional Director of Consolidation has passed the following order :- “ Notice was issued to the respondents who appeared and contested the case. The respondents opposed the prayer C.W.P No. 478 of 1987 (O&M) ::2:: of the petitioner on the ground that in case the service path is allowed as requested by him in the petition, it will bifurcate the kurra of the respondents in two parts which will not be to their advantage. So after lot of arguments and discussion, both the parties agreed for a compromised service path along the side corner of Khasra Nos.66 South, 64 South, 61 West, 63 South- West, 61/1 South-East, 62 South West-North..........” In the writ petition, the only ground taken is that no consent or consession was made by counsel for the petitioner or by the petitioner. In the written statement, filed by the private respondents, it is asserted that the allegation of the petitioner is false and the impugned order was passed on consent. It is not shown that if no consent had been given by the petitioner or his counsel, whether any review application was filed to correct this wrong observation. In these circumstances, it would be impossible for this Court sitting in writ jurisdiction to determine this pure question of fact. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main writ petition has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) July 08, 2010. JUDGE `kk'