RAM PHOOL Vs. DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION, HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 24.2.1997, Annexure P6 passed by the Director Consolidation, Haryana. The petitioner and their brother inherited land measuring 40 kanals and 2 marlas situated in village Mukimpur, Tehsil and District Sonepat. They purchased the adjoining land measuring about 38 kanals from Jage Ram and Jot Ram sons of Mam Chand. A rasta bearing No. 77 was provided during consolidation to the land owned by Jage Ram and Jot Ram from the boundary lines of Killa Nos. 39//1 and 2 and Killa Nos. 39//9 and 10. Case of the petitioners is that the said Rasta was not given a turn so as to enable Jage Ram and Jot Ram to enter their fields. However, they continued to use that passage being the only passage for going to their fields without seeking extension of the path by about two Karams. After the purchase of the land, they moved an application for extending the path by two Karams in Killa No. 39//1/1 so as to enable the petitioners to have access to their holdings through that path. This application was allowed by the Director Consolidation by order dated 28.10.1994 and the matter was remanded to the Consolidation Officer with a direction to consider the case for extending the path. The Consolidation Officer after hearing learned counsel for the parties and after making spot inspection, extended path No. 77 and Chandgi Ram father of respondents 2 to 6 was compensated by giving equivalent land from the land of the petitioners. Appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer was dismissed by the Settlement Officer, Rohtak by order dated 2.7.1996. Aggrieved by the orders of the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer, Chandgi filed appeal before the Director Consolidation, Haryana which was allowed by order dated 24.2.1997, and the order passed by the Settlement Officer was set aside. Hence this writ petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Director Consolidation allowed the appeal primarily on two grounds, namely, (i) that the respondents were given a passage to reach their fields at the time of consolidation, and (ii) that a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act') (being case No. 211 of 1982) moved by the brothers of the petitioner was earlier dismissed on 23.4.1982 and they concealed this fact while filing the second application and thus the application should have been dismissed on the principle of res judicata.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents could not point out by reference to any material on record that a passage was provided to the land in dispute of Jage Ram etc. during consolidation from whom the petitioners purchased the land in dispute. Learned counsel also could not dispute that the factum of disposal of the earlier petition was disclosed while moving application seeking relief for providing a path.