IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.17141 of 2009 Date of Decision: May 03, 2011 Pritam Singh & another .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Director, Land Records, Punjab & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Amit Jhanji, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. Mr. B.S. Sewak, Advocate, for respondent Nos.3 to 7. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order dated 29.7.2009 (Annexure P-5) passed by Director, Land Records, Punjab (respondent No.1.). 2. Perusal of Order Annexure P-5 CWP No.17141 of 2009 [2] indicates that petitioners filed an application under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short, ‘Consolidation Act’) with the plea that they are owners in possession of land given in the application. At the time of consolidation proceedings, no passage was given to their Tak. They were using passage mentioned in the site plan, marked as AB and CD. The other owners of the land out of which passage was being used, have stopped the petitioners from using the said passage. 3. It has been specifically pleaded that Consolidation Department committed a mistake at the time of consolidation by not providing any passage to connect the land of the petitioners. 4. Private respondents took the plea of limitation. On facts/ merits, it was stated that there is a choe in the land of the petitioner that has been used as a passage, and therefore, there is no requirement of giving a separate passage. The application of the petitioners has been dismissed as time barred on the ground that no reason has been given for filing the application at this belated stage. 5. Considering the contents of the impugned order, I find that reason has been given CWP No.17141 of 2009 [3] that the petitioners were allowed to use the passage by a neighbour which, however, subsequently has been dis-allowed. No finding of fact has been returned as to whether land of the petitioners is connected with passage or not. 6. Vide Order dated 19.1.2011, Local Commissioner was appointed by this Court to verify the fact as to whether land of the petitioner is connected with a passage or not. Report dated 10.2.2011 has been submitted alongwith the photographs. 7. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, learned counsel for the parties contend that let the case be considered on merits by the Director, Land Records, Punjab, who would be the appropriate authority under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act to take a decision for providing a passage to connect the land of the petitioner. 8. In view of the above, Order dated 29.7.2009 (Annexure P-5) is hereby quashed. Director, Land Records, Punjab, is hereby directed to consider the issue on merits. It is further directed that report submitted by the Local Commissioner shall also be taken into account. The pleadings/ material to be supplied by the private respondents would also be CWP No.17141 of 2009 [4] considered so as to consider the request of the petitioner for providing a passage. 9. The parties shall put in appearance before the Director, Land Records, Punjab, on 24.5.2011. 10. The petition is accordingly disposed of. 11. Copy of the order be given under signatures of Special Secretary of the Bench. (AJAI LAMBA) May 03, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?