BELA RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAM Ditta, predecessor of respondents 2 to 5 and Tulsi Ram respondent 6 filed a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short "the Act") for providing a path to their tak. The petition was dismissed by the Director Consolidation by order dated 28. 2. 1991. Ram Ditta and Tulsi Ram challenged the order of the Director by filing a writ petition being CWP 12663 of 1991. The writ petition was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 18. 11. 1993 and the parties were directed to appear before the Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab Chandigarh on 6. 12. 1993. The matter was thereafter taken up by the Director Consolidation and he by his order dated 8. 12. 1995, Annexure P-3 allowed the petition under Section 42 of the Act filed by Ram Ditta and Tulsi Ram. The Director Consolidation came to the conclusion that the petitioners are entitled to a path to their tak. He consequently remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer Mohali with a direction to provide a path to the petitioners through Killa Nos. as detailed in the order. It is this order of the Director Consolidation which is under challenge in this petition at the instance of Bela Ram.

(2.) IN response to notice of motion, respondents have put in appearance. A joint written statement has been filed on behalf of respondents 2 to 6. Another joint written statement has been filed by respondents 7 and 8. The respondents have tried to show that the order passed by the Director Consolidation deserves to be sustained.

(3.) HOWEVER , after a few days, the petitioner moved a Civil Misc. application stating that Chander Bhan has refused to give "no objection" in respect of the path in Killa No. 14/11. It is in this view of the matter, the present writ petition has been heard on its own merits.