IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Letters Patent Appeal No.453 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 30.6.2010 Gram Panchayat Gadodu …..Appellant versus State of Punjab and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.Rai Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the appellant Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) CM Nos.1293 and 1294 of 2010 in LPA No.453 of 2010 In view of reasons mentioned in the applications, the same are allowed and 45 days delay in re-filing and 308 days delay in filing the appeal stands condoned. LPA No.453 of 2010 The petitioner Gram Panchayat filed an application under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation ), Act 1948 (in short the Act) with a prayer to provide link passage to its land. That application was dismissed vide order dated 25.4.2005 on the ground that earlier also, a right holder had filed application for that very purpose but failed. It was further mentioned that the Gram Panchayat had a link passage to its land and as such relief cannot be granted. The petitioner Gram Panchayat filed CWP No.9796 of 2007 to Letters Patent Appeal No.453 of 2010(O&M) impugne the above said order which was dismissed vide order dated 12.1.2009, by observing as under:- “Application filed by the petitioner under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act has been declined. Earlier petition was filed against the second party before the Court regarding disputed land, which was dismissed. Now the Gram Panchayat has again filed this case regarding passage. On this basis, the present petition has been declined. I do not find infirmity in the view taken. It would not call for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.” We feel that the order passed is perfectly justified. Counsel for the appellant has failed to show that the Consolidation authorities had committed any mistake at the time when repartition was conducted in the village. If the passage has been disrupted after consolidation due to exchange of land, the said link passage cannot be provided by the Consolidation authorities while exercising jurisdiction under Section 42 of the Act. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 30.06.2010 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge 2