JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

Factual background

Respondent No. 2-one Mohinder Singh son of Saudagar Singh resident of village Mandvi, Tehsil Khanauri, District Sangrur, instituted against the petitioners herein, a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act of 1948). In the said petition, the above Mohinder Singh claimed that, in the finalized consolidation scheme, killa Nos. 125//21, 23 became allotted to the original owners. He also pleaded thereins that in view of the consolidation scheme, a consolidation passage became provided to each tak, as became allotted to the right holders. The ancestors of the petitioner therein had given land on pro-rata cut for the common purposes of the village. He further pleaded thereins, that the tak which had been given to the petitioner therein, was allotted during consolidation proceedings, in killa Nos. 125//21, 22, 23, and, path to the said tak became provided in the north of killa No. 158//4, and, in the northern-eastern corner of 158//3, and, the petitioner therein, was using the said path since the consolidation proceedings concerned. It is also pleaded in the petition (supra), that on an objection being raised by the respondents therein, the petitioner inquired the relevant revenue record. On inquiry thereof, he came to know that owing to a mistake of the consolidation department concerned, that a path was not provided, during the consolidation scheme hence to the tak of the original owner of the petitioner thereins, whereas, the consolidation scheme enjoins the essentiality qua providing of a consolidation passage to the tak of each estate holders. Therefore, an espoused was made for the according of the claimed passage.

2. The authority, before whom the said petition became presented, through an order, made on 28.1.2015, and, which becomes enclosed in Annexure P-7, assigned the claimed passage to the petitioner therein one Mohinder Singh. A perusal of Annexure P-7 also discloses, that in granting a new revenue rasta, other than the one which was provided in the finalized consolidation scheme, by the Consolidation Officer concerned, the authority concerned, made the hereinafter extracted, thus withdrawals, and, additions to the lands of the estate holders concerned.

3. Therefore, the petitioners being aggrieved from the above made order, are led to obviously institute there against the instant petition before this Court.

Objective of the Act of 1948

4. The statutory object of the Act of 1948, is to prevent fragmentation, and, to consolidate the land holdings of the estate hol