IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 564 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 19.10.2011 Amarjit Singh .... PETITIONER Versus Director, Land Record, Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Manohar Lall, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. R.L. Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.2, 4 and 5. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. ( Oral ) Petitioner Amarjit Singh has filed the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated December 08, 2006 (Annexure P-19), passed by the Director, Land Record, Punjab (respondent No.1) exercising the powers under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), whereby the claim of the petitioner for providing 2 karam wide passage from khasra No. 30 has been declined. CWP No. 564 of 2008 -2- It is the case of the petitioner that he is owner of khasra No. 28, which is situated outside the village Abadi. During consolidation, no passage was provided to the said khasra number. He filed application under Section 42 of the Act before the Director to provide him passage from khasra No. 30, owned by respondents No.2 to 8. Vide the impugned order, the Director has rejected the claim of the petitioner, while observing that earlier also one Charan Singh, who was owner of khasra No. 29, had filed a petition under Section 42 of the Act (File No. 58 of 1997) claiming two karam wide passage from khasra No. 30 and vide order dated 22.7.1999 (Annexure P-17), the said petition was dismissed, while coming to the conclusion that khasra No. 29 was already having a passage. In this case, there is a demarcation report (Annexure P-15), submitted by the Kanungo who was appointed as a Local Commissioner by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, and in this report, it has been categorically reported that for khasra No. 22, 23, 25, 27, 28 and 29, 4 karam metaled road is available. As per the report, it is clear that the petitioner is already having 4 karam wide passage to his plot, which was reserved during consolidation. The petitioner has not placed on record any document from the consolidation record, indicating that during consolidation no passage was provided to the said khasra number. An oral averment has been made that khasra No. 28 is having no passage, though there is no such document which indicate so. Thus, in our opinion, the Director Consolidation has rightly observed that earlier also a similar petition was dismissed, wherein a CWP No. 564 of 2008 -3- passage was claimed from khasra No. 30, and therefore, similar claim of the petitioner has been rejected. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the said demarcation report further pointed out that two karam surplus area is available in khasra No. 30 is not relevant. Even if some surplus area is available, the same cannot be given to the petitioner as passage, because the petitioner is already having a passage to his plot, which was provided in the consolidation proceedings. No merit. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE October 19, 2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) ndj JUDGE