NIRANJAN SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS Niranjan Singh and others grave for providing them only one path to go to their land bearing khasra No. 708, which as proved from the records of the case was not separately provided to khasra No. 708. This limited relief for which they staked their claim through a petition filed by them Under Section 41 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention or Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was denied to them by Director Consolidation of Holdings vide orders (Annexure P-3) dated 7th January 1992. It is this order of the Director which has been challenged by the petitioners in this writ petition filed by them under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The relief asked for by them either before Director Consolidation of Holdings or before this Court emanates from the facts which need a necessary mention.

(2.) PETITIONERS are right holders in village Pipli and during the Consolidation proceedings they were allotted khasra No. 708 measuring 15 Bighas 16 Biswas. However, at that time the said land was under the tenancy of respondent No. 2 to 4 who incidentally were owners of the adjoining land comprised in Khasra Nos. 709, 710 and 711, shown in green colour in site plan Annexure P-1. Petitioners sought eviction of respondents 2 to 4 from the Civil Court and it is proved oh the records of the case that the suit filed by them on that behalf was decreed by Sub Judge vide judgment and decree passed on that behalf on 1.6.1988. Being aggrieved respondent No. 2 to 4 carried an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Sub-Judge but they were unsuccessful in their attempt to get the said judgment set-aside. Vide judgment dated 21.3.1990 the findings recorded by the learned Sub Judge were confirmed in appeal. Site plan, Annexure P-1 clearly demonstrates that the land owned by respondents 2 to 4 touches the main phirni of the village and is therefore, connected with main road of "the village. They could, thus go to their land from the main road and were able to look after the land owned by the petitioners. The site plan also shows that there was no separate path provided to have an access for khasra No. 708. It is for this precise reason that after successful litigation pertaining to khasra No. 708, in the manner referred to above the petitioners filed an application Under Section 42 of the Act and claimed passage to their fields leading to khasra No. 708. This as mentioned above has been denied to them vide impugned order Annexure P-3. The Director Consolidation of Holdings in his impugned order had denied the desired relief to the petitioners on the ground that no law was produced before him which might entitle the petitioners to a path in their land if not so provided during the consolidation proceedings and if path was to be provided to owners who were not in occupation of the land at the time of consolidation, that according to Director of Consolidation of Holdings would result into endless paths to be provided to landowners. It was, therefore, opined by the Director Consolidation that path could be provided to only such persons who were in occupation of the land during consolidation. However, while parting with the orders the Director Consolidation kept open for the petitioners remedy that may be available to them in the Court of law.

(3.) THIS matter has been contested by the respondents who have filed written statement in tune with the observations made by the Director Consolidation which order has been impugned in this petition. This case was heard yesterday and simply with a view of accommodate Counsel representing the respondents, it was shown as part heard to be taken up today. It was shown in the cause list to be part heard. It is rather unfortunate that despite efforts made by this Court to secure the presence of the Counsel representating the respondents by sending a message to him as also showing it to be part heard and mentioning the same in the cause list, he has chosen not to appear. Not even a request has been made on his behalf to adjourn the case on some ground that might be available to him. The court views the conduct of the Lawyer seriously as it certainly amounts failing in one's duty to protect the cause of litigant who has duly engaged him and paid the fee. The Court, however, leave the matter at that only.