MAHENDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three Petitioners (3) have filed the instant writ petition, challenging the order dtd. 31/5/2016 (P-1) passed by the Director Consolidation-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Gurgaon Zone, Gurgaon while exercising the powers under Sec. 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1948), whereby an application filed by respondent nos. 3 and 4 i.e. Roshni Devi and Mantra Devi for grant of passage has been allowed, by making good the deficiency caused to petitioners.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the Director Consolidation has exceeded his jurisdiction while carving out a passage for the contesting respondent nos. 3 and 4 from the land of petitioners after more than 40 years have elapsed since consolidation had taken place, especially when no such passage was ever reserved under the scheme. It is argued that the Director Consolidation has wrongly condoned the delay despite the fact he himself records in the impugned order that there is a considerable delay in approaching him. Thus, prayer has been made for setting aside the impugned order dtd. 31/5/2016 (P-1).

(3.) On the other hand, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents nos. 3 and 4 has supported the impugned order passed by the Director Consolidation by arguing that while passing the impugned order, Director Consolidation has made good the deficiency caused in the land of petitioners by allotting equivalent amount of land from the adjacent land owned by respondent nos. 3 and 4. It is argued that no doubt there was a considerable delay in approaching the authority concerned, however, the delay caused was on account of fact that at time of purchase of land by Balbir Singh (father of respondent nos. 3 and 4) from Durga Singh (father of petitioners); the passage in question was already in existence, however, after the respondents had constructed their houses and started tilling their land, petitioners wrongly blocked the passage by taking advantage of the revenue entries. This in turn led to a situation whereby respondents had no passage left for egress and ingress to their houses as well as lands and, therefore, were forced to approach the Director Consolidation, being unaware about the factual position. Thus, it is prayed that keeping in view the factual aspect of the case, the instant writ petition be dismissed.