Karnail Singh vs The Addl. Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Etc.

K. Kannan, J.—The writ petition challenges the order passed by the Additional Director in terms of which he dismissed the petition filed u/s 42 of the East Punjab holdings (consolidation and Prevention of the Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short ''the Act''). The right claimed by the petitioner was that in the manner of preparation or scheme where an open space possessed by the petitioner was allotted to one Mewa Singh. His contention was that he had a property which immediately west on the same and his access to come to the village phirni of 60'' x 6 width would be possible only though the property which was now allotted to Mewa Singh.

The petition had no been addressed on merits and dismissed on account of the fact that there was no representation made on behalf of the petitioner at the time when it was taken up.

There is no representation for the private respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner himself is no fully apprised of the present status it to observe that the impugned order passed by the Addl. Director without adverting to merit of the petitioner''s contention would require to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The right of access to a public road from private property would exist as frontage, on the basis that if the property abuts a public pathway and there is intervening property in the hands of any private individual, the land of such person shall be subject to dominant tenement of the owner adjoining the land to secure access to the public road. The petitioner was not making a plea for allotment of the whole property. He was only objecting to the allotment made already to the private respondent without making provision for a right.

The impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted to the Authority for disposal in accordance with the law recognizing the petitioners claim to such way after ensuring that there is no other way to reach the public pathway from the petitioner''s own land, except through the property which is now allotted the private respondent. A fresh order shall be passed after due notice to both the parties, allowing the parties to participate in the enquiry and allow for such details to be elicited from the parties as it is exigent. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms.

For appearance of parties before the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab on 28.04.2011.