NACHHATTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS and respondent No. 3 are residents of village Dholan Majra, Tehsil and District Ropar in the State of Punjab. Consolidation proceedings took place in the village in the year 1963-1964. Niranjan Singh and his son Nacchattar Singh petitioners herein filed a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short the Act) before the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab alleging that they had not been provided with any path to their garden and as such it was difficult for them to have access to it. Smt. Angrez Kaur alias Gejo wife of Gurdev Singh who is also a petitioner in this Court was impleaded as a respondent in that petition. She pleaded before the Additional Director that Niranjan Singh and his sons could have access to the garden from the play-ground which had been reserved for the village school in Rect. No. 34. The Additional Director did not accept this plea and came to the conclusion that Niranjan Singh and his sons did not have a path and that it was desirable to provide them with one. The petition was accordingly allowed and one karam wide path from the side of the well was given to them upto the garden. Niranjan Singh and his sons were ordered to give 4 marlas of land to Smt. Angrez Kaur and that the latter would leave one karam wide area from the western side of her land. This proposal was accepted by the parties and the changes were accordingly ordered. Some area was withdrawn from Niranjan Singh and Smt. Angrez Kaur and also from the land belonging to Jumla Mukshtarka Malkan and corresponding areas were given to them. This order was passed by the Additional Director on 23.9.1966. Feeling aggrieved by this order, Ajmer Singh respondent filed a petition challenging the said order under Section 42 of the Act. It was pointed out that he had not been heard while passing the order dated 23.9.1966 which adversely affected his interest. He also alleged that no path had been provided to his land in Khasra No. 20/26 and, therefore, he was finding it difficult to have access to his land. The Additional Director examined the record and found that Ajmer Singh respondent had no path to his land and that the path earlier provided in the land belonging to Jumla Mushtarka Malkan was the link to his land which had been withdrawn by order dated 23.9.1966. Petitioners who were parties before the Additional Director were present and stated that they had no objection if Ajmer Singh was allowed a path provided they were compensated. The petition was accordingly allowed and two karams wide path was provided to the land of Ajmer Singh. This path was taken out from the land of Niranjan Singh and Ajmer Singh was directed to give an equal area of land to Niranjan Singh. Both the parties agreed to this solution. The petition was accordingly disposed of and directions were given to make the necessary changes. It is against this order that the present petition was filed by the petitioners alleging that the Additional Director could not review the order of his predecessor and, therefore, the impugned order was without jurisdiction.

(2.) I have heard counsel for the parties and with their help I have gone through the impugned order. The present is not a case of review of the earlier order. The order dated 23.9.1966 was an ex parte order to which Ajmer Singh respondent was not a party. By that order the Additional Director had taken out one marla of land from the area belonging to Jumal Mashtarka Malkan which was a path leading to the land of Ajmer Singh respondent. When that land was withdrawn form Jumla Mushtarka Malkan Ajmer Singh obviously felt aggrieved. This exclusion was only on paper and on the spot it continued to be used as a path. It was only when Ajmer Singh was restrained from using the same that he filed the petition under Section 42 of the Act which resulted in the passing of the impugned order. Since Ajmer Singh was not a party it was always open to him to approach the Additional Director and ask for a path. In such an eventuality, it was open to the Additional Director to make the necessary changes in the earlier order. Moreover, the impugned order was passed on the consent of the parties and, therefore, the petitioners have no locus standi to file the present petition. They appeared before the Additional Director and stated that they had no objection provided they were compensated. The Additional Director allowed two karams wide path from the land of the petitioners and at the same time ordered Ajmer Singh respondent to compensate the petitioners with an equal area of land. Since the petitioners had consented to the arrangement made by the Additional Director the present writ petition on their behalf is not maintainable. Learned senior counsel appearing on their behalf contended that the petitioners had not consented before the Additional Director but this contention cannot be accepted in the light of what the Additional Director has observed in the impugned order. I am also of the view that the impugned order passed by the Additional Director is fair and reasonable in the circumstances of the present case. As has been found by him, Ajmer Singh respondent had no path leading to his land. He was using the one in the land belonging to Jumla Mushtarka Malkan and when that was taken out on the petition filed by the petitioners he was left without a path. Niranjan Singh and his sons had only filed a petition to have a path for their garden. The land belonging to them was provided with a path during the consolidation proceedings. It is not necessary that every part of their land w as to have a separate path. For this reason as well, I am unable to interfere with the impugned order. In the result, the writ petition fails and the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.