MEHAR DIN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MEHAR Din through present petition filed by him under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash order dated May 22,1992 passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Haryana.

(2.) THE facts, of the case reveal that petitioner is a small land-owner. The consolidation proceedings took place in the village about thirty years back. Respondent No. 2 is stated to be a big land-owner and having a big family. He is having land, it is stated, on three sides of the land belonging to petitioner. Respondent No. 2, it is stated, was having joint khewat till recent and all the co-owners were using their own path so as to go to their fields. Respondent No. 2 purchased some more land from one Baru Ram, to whom land was allotted after he had migrated from the areas now forming part of Pakistan. After the land was purchased by respondent No. 2 from Baru Ram, he filed application under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (here-in-after referred to as the Act of 1948 ). So, the matter came up for adjudication before the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Haryana, who passed the impugned order, Annexure P-5. It is pleaded and so argued by learned o counsel appearing for the petitioner that order, Annexure P5, is illegal and the consolidation proceedings in the village had been completed thirty years back and every land-owner was given path to reach to his land and that being so, it was not within the jurisdiction of the Director, Consolidation to give path to the respondent after a period of thirty years. It is also argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is already a path in existence from which the land of petitioner was easily accessible.

(3.) THE cause of petitioner has been opposed and in the written statement that has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, it has been pleaded that he is a very small land-owner and it is wrong that he was having land on three sides of the land owned by petitioner. His share in the land as shown in Annexure P-2 alongwith one Santa Singh son of Puran Singh is only ]/6th share and all the persons, who have been mentioned in Annexure P-2, are cultivating their land separately for the last so many years by a private partition. Further, it is pleaded that the land which represents the share of respondents, does not adjoin the land owned by petitioner. The land shown in Annexure P-3, it is pleaded, was purchased by him from one Baru Ram son of Punjaba Ram vide registered sale deed dated July 3, 1981. There was no path for him to go to his land described in Annexure P-3, jamabandi for the year 1986-87. No path was given to his vendor even during the consolidation proceedings. It is in these circumstances that he had no choice but for to make an application under Section 42 of the Act, 1948 for getting path to go to his land.