Bela Ram vs State of Punjab

G.C. Garg, J.—Ram Ditta, predecessor of respondents 2 to 5 and Tulsi Ram respondent 6 filed a petition u/s 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 u/s 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.

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.

On 27.8.1996, a Division Bench of this Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties passed the following order

"An alternative passage is suggested from Killa Nos. 17/3 to 14/23, 14/19 on the border of 14/12 of Chander Bhan, and Bela Ram and by dividing Killa No. 14/11 of Chander Bhan. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that Chander Bhan has no objection if his Killa No. 14/11 is divided into two parts in order to provide passage to the private respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection if the passage as suggested is provided instead of the passage running at the spot provided by the consolidation authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to produce Chander Bhan on the next date of hearing with an affidavit to the effect that he has no objection if his killa No. 14/11 is divided into two parts in order to provide path as suggested. Adjourned to 9.9.1996 for arguments."

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.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Director Consolidation erred in law in providing a path to the tak of the private respondents after a long delay. Learned counsel submitted that the fields of private respondents are already connected by another path and thus second path could not be ordered to be provided.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that this petition has no merit. The Director Consolidation came to the conclusion that joint Khata of the parties had been partitioned during consolidation and no path was provided to the tak of the respondents. The scheme of consolidation provided that each and every kurra is to be provided with a path. The private respondents were shown to have been provided with a path during consolidation but in the record, the path had not been mentioned. He thus ordered to make a provision of a path to the tak of the private respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not by reference to any material on record show that the tak of the private respondents had been provided with a path during consolidation or that the joint Khata of the parties had not been partitioned during consolidation. Once the Khata was partitioned, it was expected of the consolidation authorities to provide a path to the tak of the private respondents, which as already noticed was not provided due to inadvertence and none was mentioned in the revenue record. In view of the fact that the a provision had been made in the scheme to provide a path to the tak of each right holder and this is precisely what has been ordered by the Director Consolidation. We thus see no ground to interfere with the order of the Director Consolidation. The writ petition is consequently dismissed.