The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, in cases involving easement rights and the conclusive effect of a civil court's decree.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J. - Factual Background

1. The facts relevant to decide the instant petition, are that, consolidation operations were concluded in village Akala/Karnail ganj in the year 1959-60. Resultantly the land comprised in khewat No. 49, Khasra No. 40//6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18; 41//9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, was allotted to Bishan Singh son of Nahal Singh, and, to Ishar Singh son of Jawala Singh, but to the extent of share each. Sh. Ishar Singh died and was survived by his legal heirs one Sh. Gursharan Singh, and, Sh.Gursher Singh. Gursharan Singh and Gursher Singh, to the extent of share, sold their land to Rattan Singh, whereas, to the extent of % share each, they sold land to Sangat Singh and Bishan Singh vide sale deed dated 19.01.1968, in pursuance whereto, mutation No.624 was recorded. Moreover, Rattan Singh and Sangat Singh sold lands measuring 11 Kanals 7 marlas, as comprised in Khasra No. 41/9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14.

Cause of Action

2. Since the finalization of consolidation operations in the village, the original owners and thereafter Rattan Singh were using the rasta/path on the eastern side of khasra No. 41//17, whereafter, the petitioner was also using this rasta/path, but now with the respondent party restraining her from using this rasta/path, the present petitioner, who is the vendee of the original allottee one Bishan Singh, became led to institute a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1948 (hereinafter for short call 'the Act'). Since a dis-affirmative verdict, appended as Annexure P-7 to the instant petition, became made recorded thereons, thus, the petitioner is led to rear a challenge thereto through hers' instituting the instant petition.

Reply of the respondent.

3. A reading of the reply furnished to the instant petition, on behalf of the respondents reveals, that thereins occurs an admission qua rasta/path shown in red colour in Aks Shijra, carried in Annexure R-2, as, appended with the reply dated 26.09.2019, as, furnished to the petition by co-respondent No.1, District Revenue Officer-cum-Consolidation Officer, District Kapurthala, rather becoming earmarked for the relevant purpose. Thereins, it is also unfolded that the path described in Annexure (supra), became allotted, hence in the finalized consolidation proceedings. The finalized consolidation proceedings are stated to be completed in the year 1958-59. Moreover, therein it has been reflected that the width of the said path is about 4 karma. In addition, the reply furnished to the writ petition by the above also reveals, that the present petitioner purchased the land concerned, vide mutation No. 1686 drawn on 13.11.2009 from the recorded co-owner, and, whereafter she was depicted as co-sharer in Khewat Nos. 208 and 209 of village Karnail Ganj.

4. Moreover, it has also been reflected in the said reply that the petitioner has every right to access her land through hers' getting partition of the land being done through hers recoursing the provisions of Section 111 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. Therefore, the above meted replies by the respondents concerned, to the writ petition, do support the contention raised in the instant petition by the petitioner that on termination of consolidation proceedings, a path was reserved for the relevant purpose to the co-owners in the Khasra numbers concerned.

Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that the co-respondent No. 2, one Bakshish Kaur is causing obstructions to the petitioner in hers' exercising her rights of easement qua the path comprised in Khasra No. 41//17. The reason for the said obstruction being caused at the instance of one Bakshish Kaur, is grounded, in the factum that the alleged path does not occur on the above khasra numbers.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on the basis of a judgement rendered by this Court