AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.
(Oral) the petitioners are aggrieved against the order of the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holding, Punjab, Chandigarh, who vide his order dated 27th December, 1979 on an application filed by respondent No. 2 provided a path which was to pass through the land of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is the respondent No. 2 Smt. Bishan Kaur filed a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on 15121978, against the repartition under Section 21(1) ordered on 3051959 on the ground that a path be provided to her holdings (quarrah) which was not done by the Consolidation Authorities.
According to the petitioner''s learned counsel, Smt. Bishan Kaur was allotted land in lieu of Gallantry Award given to her son on account of his death in the war and as such, she was not a landowner/cosharer or having any holding on 3051959 when repartition under Section 21(1) in the village was made.
The counsel has invited my attention to Annexure P1 to this writ petition wherein the petitioner'' lands have been demarcated with Green Colour and Blue Colour respectively on the Shajra Akash and the holding of respondent No. 2 Bishan Kaur is marked with Yellow Colour on the Shajra Akash and that of her husband Tara Singh etc. holding adjoin to the qurrah.
Mr. Sachdeva contends that the Additional Director acting under Section 42 of the Act, provided a path illegally to the lands of respondent No. 2 alongwith the Northern side of Khasra No. 37/1 and Eastern side of Khasra Nos. 37/1, 37/10, 37/11 and alongwith the WesternSouthern side of Khasra No. 37/19 which has divided the qurrah of the petitioners on both sides of their qurrahs
The contention of the learned counsel is that respondent No. 2 was not a cosharer or landowner when repartition was made on 3051959, as such she had no right to file any petition under Section 42 of the Act against the repartition.
I have perused the written statement of the respondent. I find no substance in it. After going through entire paper book, I am of the view that respondent No. 2 was not a cosharer or landowner when the repartition was made under Section 21(1) of the Act as such she had no right to file any petition under Section 42 of the Act, against the repartition made under Section 21(1) of the Act on 3051959.
In view of the forgoing reasons, the impugned order Annexure P1 of respondent No. 1 is quashed. Writ petition is accepted. there will be no order as to costs.
However, it will be open to respondent No. 2 to approach the Consolidation Authorities to secure alternate path on abadi side.