IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1577 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 19.11.2010 Kuldeep and others …..Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.Vikas Awasthy, Advocate for the appellants Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) C.M. Nos.4764-4765 of 2010 In view of reasons given in the applications, the same are allowed and delay in re-filing and filing the appeal stands condoned. LPA No.1577 of 2010 Vide order dated 29.12.2006, Director Consolidation, Haryana, Chandigarh, exercising the powers under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation ), Act 1948 (in short the Act) allowed application filed by respondent No.5 and ordered restoration of a path, which was carved out at the time of consolidation proceedings, however, was not actually left at the spot. Appellants filed CWP No.3773 of 2008 to impugne the above said order, which was dismissed by the Single Judge on 3.3.2010. Hence, this appeal. LPA No.1577 of 2010(O&M) When dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioners, learned Single Judge observed as under:- “I have heard counsel for the petitioners and find no reason to hold that the impugned order suffers from any error. As is apparent from the order passed by the Assistant Director, C/H, Rohtak, that during consolidation of holdings in the village, a path was provided upto the village boundary along the southern alignments of Killa Nos.166/3, 12, 11, 167/15, 14, 13 and along the western side of Killa No.167/13, so as to link the path with path No.224 provided in the fields of village Kharak Jattan upto the common boundary wall. On an application filed by the private respondents, the path was restored and the petitioners’ contention that a path cannot be granted to provide a link path to another village was rejected. I find no reason to hold that the impugned order suffers from any error of jurisdiction or of law, as would require interference. A village path is essentially intended to benefit the residents of the village. Where boundaries of two villages abut it would be essential that a path be provided to link the revenue estates of two villages. In view of what has been stated herein above, the writ petition is dismissed.” We are of the opinion that the order passed is perfectly justified. It is not proved on record that as per the consolidation record, the passage was not left at the time of consolidation proceedings. The said passage could not be actually left at the spot which necessitated the filing of an application under Section 42 of the Act, which was allowed vide order 2 LPA No.1577 of 2010(O&M) dated 29.12.2006. It has also come on record that original order restoring the passage was passed way back in the year 1969 (P4). Counsel for the appellants has failed to show any illegality in the order passed. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 19.11.2010 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge 3