IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 1022 of 1986 DATE OF DECISION : 11.11.2010 Hariya and others .... PETITIONERS Versus Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Chandigarh and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: None. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J ( Oral ) The petitioners have filed the instant petition for quashing the order dated 26.6.1985 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, in exercise of the powers under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), whereby an application filed by respondent No.2 Kulwant Singh Nalwa under Section 42 of the Act, for providing a path to his Kurra, has been allowed. A perusal of the impugned order shows that it has been found as a fact that during consolidation, no path was provided to the Kurra of respondent No.2, therefore, during the course of hearing of the said application, the petitioners raised no objection to the providing of path to the Kurra of respondent No.2, provided the petitioners are compensated in CWP No. 1022 of 1986 -2- terms of the area, that will be consumed by the path given to respondent No.2. In view of the said factual and admitted position, path was provided to the Kurra of respondent No.2. The petitioners have challenged the said order. From the impugned order, it appears that the petitioners did not raise any objection to the providing of path to the Kurra of respondent No.2. It is also found as a fact that during consolidation, path was not provided to the Kurra of respondent No.2. From the impugned order, it is also clear that while providing path from the land of the petitioners to the Kurra of respondent No.2, the petitioners have been adequately compensated by providing them the adjoining land of respondent No.2. Thus, no prejudice has been caused to them. This petition was earlier dismissed in default by this Court on August 4, 2004. Thereafter, on an application filed by the petitioners, the said order was re-called on April 29, 2005 and the case was again ordered to be listed for regular hearing. Today again, no one is present on behalf of the petitioners. Since I have gone through the impugned order and do not find any illegality in the same, therefore, the instant petition is dismissed being without any merit. November 11, 2010 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE