JUDGMENT
T.H.B. Challapathi, J.
1. This writ petition is filed for quashing the order of Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab Jullunder passed Under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentations) Act, 1948 (for short the ‘Act’) on 9.12.1980.
2. Respondents 3 to 6 filed an application before the Additional Director, Pun- jab, Jullunder alleging that there was a passage in killa No. 21 of Rectable No. 30 and they have been using the same, but it is not shown in the record. The petitioner, who is the owner of Rect. No. 30 objected to carving out a passage from Killa No. 21 and 22/1 of Rect. No. 30 on the ground that the said land has been allotted to him during the consolidation proceedings that took place in the year 1960 and the application by respondents No. 34o 6 has filed in the year 1979 i.e. nearly 18 years after the finalisation of the consolidation proceedings and therefore the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings Punjab has no power Under Section 42 of the Act to carve out a passage from his holdings by the impugned order that a passage should be provided at the missing place by remanding the case to the Consolidation Officer.
3. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner filed this writ petition.
4. There is no dispute on the point that consolidation proceedings have become final in the year 1960 and respondent No. 3 to 6 filed an application for carving out a passage in the year 1979 i.e. nearly 20 years after the finalisation of the consolidation proceedings. I am of the view that Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 1948 has no application to the facts of the present case. The respondents No. 3 to 6 are claiming a right of passage across the land of the petitioner and the remedy availed to the respondent 3 to 6 who are said to have been using the passage, is to file a civil suit on the basis of easementary right if any, they have acquired. Once the consolidation scheme has been framed and implemented any change in the same cannot be made Under Section 42 of the Act.
5. In Harbhajan Singh v. The State of Punjab and Ors., (1970 P.L.J. 240), it has been held as follows :-
“The scheme, as averred in the written statement was confirmed Under Section 20(3) of the Act by the Settlement Officer on the 21st December 1959 in the general gathering of the village after deciding on merits all the objections received against the publication of the scheme. The petitioner or any other right holder did not file any objection against this provision of the schemes. As such the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge this provision of the scheme after such an inordinate delay in this writ petition which was filed in the year 1960.”
6. In Amar Singh and Ors. v. The Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana, (1986(1) LLR 43), it has been held as follows :-
“Before me it is not disputed by the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 that at the time of repartition during 1961-62 a passage or path had been provided to the land belonging to her father. In the face of this, the requirement of the scheme of consolidation which undisputably lays down that a passage has to be provided to the kurrah of each every land owner stood fully satisfied and respondent No. 2 was not entitled to ask for any more passage Under any circumstances. The mere fact that she sold part of the land she acquired from her father alongwith the passage meant for that land does not either legally or morally entitle her to ask for any more passage or path to her remaining land. In view of the fact that the relevant provision of the scheme of consolidation stood satisfied with the allotment of the earlier passage, the Additional Director had no jurisdiction to grant any more passage or path to the remaining land of respondent No. 2 more particularly after lapse of about 22 years of the re-partition.”
7. In Ramu alias Ram Kishan and Anr. v. The Director Consolidation Haryana and Anr. (1994 PLJ 146), it has been held as follows :-
“This Court in Mehar Chand v. State of Haryana and Ors. 1971 PLJ 562 (supra) held that “from bare reading of Section 42 of the Act of 1948 the facts of the case aforesaid reveal that there was no dispute that path No. 57 was provided in the scheme of consolidation prepared under the Act. It was also an admitted case that about the alleged encroachment on path No. 57 respondent No. 2 and some others filed a complaint Under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the proceedings in that complaint were stayed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate vide order dated January 19, 1967. Instead of getting the matter settled from the civil Court the respondents of the said case had filed an application Under Section 42 of the Act of 1948 on which the impugned order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner. It was in the circumstances aforesaid that this Court had held as has been extracted above. Mr. Sihota learned counsel may be absolutely right in contending that if no path is provided under the consolidation scheme then the authorities constituted under the Act of 1948 always have jurisdiction to provide a path and that being so there is no limitation whatsoever but the facts of the present case reveal that path was actually provided in the scheme, even though it was not with regard to respective holdings of the parties. In these circumstances, there was no choice for the respondents No. 3 to 10 but for to have knocked the doors of the Civil Court for getting the existing path restored if the same had been blocked.”
8. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the order of the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab Jalandhar dated 9.12.1980 cannot be sustained. I accordingly allow the writ petition and quash the impugned order of the Additional Director dated 9.12.1980. No order as to costs.