TIKA RAM Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India attacks two orders passed under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and effecting a material change in the alignment of the path leading to the fields of the petitioners.

(2.) Consolidation of holdings in village Badsikri Khurd took place during the year 1962 and in the course of proceedings under Section 21 of the Act a three Karam wide path leading up to the fields, which were canal irrigated, of the petitioners was provided by the Consolidaiton authorities. Thereafter, the petitioners constructed some culverts (according to the respondents only one such culvert was built) over the path to make it trafficable. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed objections before the Consolidation Officer under Section 21(2) of the Act against the provision of the said path. The objections were dismissed on the 2nd of November, 1964, and said respondents then filed an application before the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, under Section 42 of the Act. They impleaded eight persons other than the petitioners as respondents. Without issuing notices to the petitioners the Additional Director accepted the application and changed the alignment of the path so that according to the amended alignment directed by him the petitioners would have to traverse a longer distance in order to reach their fields. It is also their case that the new path is not trafficable as it passes through water-logged land.

(3.) On coming to know about the orders of the Additional Director the petitioners filed an application dated the 11th August, 1969, under Section 42 of the Act before him with the prayer that they be afforded an opportunity of being heard in the matter of the amendment of the path as they were vitally interested in it. That application was sent by the Additional Director to the Assistant Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Rohtak (respondent No. 1), who dismissed the same on the 20th of November, 1969 with the following observations :-