GANDA SINGH Vs. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND HOLDINGS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is not a matter of dispute that the controversy in question relates to village Rupowali Chagwan in District Amritsar, wherein consolidation took place in 1964. On account of consolidation separate lands were assigned to the petitioner on the one hand, and to respondent No. 2 Hardial Singh on the other. Eighteen years after consolidation of lands in village Rupowali Chagwan, respondent No. 2 Hardial Singh filed an application under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 1948 Act), seeking a passage to his land by alleging, that during the process of consolidation, no passage had been provided to him for access to his land.

(2.) THE Competent Authority examined the controversy raised by Hardial Singh and after issuing notice to the petitioner Ganda Singh arrived at the conclusion that no passage had been provided to connect the land of Hardial Singh to the metalled road. A passage connecting the land of respondent No. 2 Hardial Singh to the metalled road was ordered to be carved out from over the land of the petitioner Ganda Singh. In lieu of the land, which would be taken away on account of providing a passage to the land of Hardial Singh, he (Hardial Singh) surrendered an equal area of land so as to compensate Ganda Singh.

(3.) FIRSTLY , it is contended that there is an existing passage connecting the land of Hardial Singh with the metalled road, and therefore, there was no justification in providing a second passage to Hardial Singh. In so far as the instant contention is concerned, the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 reveals an express denial to the aforesaid factual averment. The issue projected by the petitioner, therefore, assumes the status of a disputed question of facts. It is not possible for this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to adjudicate upon the issue based on disputed question of facts. In view of the above, it is not possible for this Court, to answer the aforesaid query, in favour of the petitioner.