IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1694 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 15.12.2010 Sadhu Singh …..Appellant versus Director Land records, Punjab and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Ms.Sonia G. Singh, Advocate for the appellant Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This appeal has been filed against judgment dated 24.3.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing CWP No.10577 of 2007, filed by the appellant. In that writ petition, the appellant had laid challenge to an order passed by respondent No.1, dismissing his application, filed under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation), Act 1948 (in short the Act), to provide a path to his land. Heard counsel for the appellant. Record reveals that the appellant moved an application under Section 42 of the Act before respondent No.1 with a prayer that he was allotted khasra Nos.400 and 401 and vide resolution No.68, passed at the time of consolidation proceedings, his land was provided with a passage from khasra No.640 and 641. It was his prayer that passage be carved out at the spot. Upon notice, the private respondents put in appearance and specifically stated that no mistake was committed when re-partition was LPA No.1694 of 2010(O&M) effected. Tak(land) of the appellant was accessed through a passage, however, afterwards, when the appellant sold one part of his land, his remaining land was de-linked from the passage. To rebut that argument, nothing was brought on record. Furthermore, no explanation was extended to file the application more than 52 years of consolidation. Application was dismissed. The learned Single Judge, when hearing the writ petition, directed the parties to get instructions as to whether the appellant would be prepared to pay for the passage, in case the respondents agree to provide the same. The appellant never approached the respondents for the said purpose. Taking note of the disputed facts, the writ petition was dismissed. We are of the opinion that the order passed is perfectly justified. No case is made out for interference. No case is made out for condonation of delay also in filing and re-filing the appeal. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 15.12.2010 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge 2