CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6824 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 05 , 2009 Nachhattar Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Sewa Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The partition application was filed primarily on the ground to seek passage to land bearing Khasra No.1552. The mode of partition was approved on 9.7.2001, which was set-aside. The subsequently prepared mode of partition was also put under challenge. Naqsha A was prepared. The rasta to Khasra No.1552 is provided from part of passage to Khasra No.1549. This according to the petitioner is not feasible as there is some construction in existence on the proposed rasta. The appeal filed by the petitioner against this proposed rasta was dismissed on 10.1.2005. Revision was also dismissed on 27.4.2006. When the matter was heard by CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6824 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: Financial Commissioner, he directed Assistant Collector Ist Grade to inspect the spot afresh, when he found that the rasta abuts gair mumkin pond in khasra No.1546 but there was no resolution shown providing rasta from Khasra No.1546. Report accordingly was that no rasta can, thus, be provided. The revision was accordingly dismissed. It is alleged that the revision was dismissed without properly considering the report given by the Assistant Collector only on the ground that the Gram Panchayat was not a party in the proceedings and therefore, no rasta can be provided from Khasra No.1549. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Panchayat had already passed a resolution and as such, the rasta could be provided to Khasra No.1552 through Khasra No.1546, which was Gair Mumkin pond. The Financial Commissioner declined the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that the Panchayat was not a party and the resolution, thus, would be of no consequence. He accordingly upheld the rasta provided by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade and declined to interfere in the revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not show any justification to rely upon the resolution passed by the Panchayat, when the Panchayat was not a party. If the land of the Panchayat is to be used for providing rasta, it was essential to implead the Panchayat as a party. That having not been done, the Financial Commissioner was justified in saying that the rasta provided by the Assistant Collector would not call for any interference. In fact, the Assistant Collector has observed that passage to the new field of the co-sharer be provided alongwith the northern boundary of Khasra No.1550 and be extended CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6824 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: between the boundaries of Khasra No.1550 and 1551 upto Khasra No.1552. He further observed that except this no further passage can be provided to the fields of co-sharers as alongwith the western boundary of Khasra No.1549 and 1550, vendees have constructed their houses. No case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction, thus, is made out. The petition is accordingly dismissed. May 05, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE