JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral)

The petitioner is aggrieved from a decision, drawn on 16.12.2016 to which Annexure P-6 is assigned, by the Commissioner, Hissar Division Hissar, thus upon a petition cast under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short the Act of 1948). The grievance set-forth in the petition, which resulted in the drawing of Annexure P-6, was that, though the consolidation officer concerned, created a revenue rasta in favour of all the estate holders concerned, but no revenue rasta, as such was created in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioner one Jogi Ram, from whom, through a registered deed of exchange, the present petitioner acquired the disputed land.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner though, has fairly submitted before this Court, that to the said Jogi Ram, a revenue rasta was created, but yet to the petition lands, which have now been acquired under a registered deed of exchange, thus executed in his favour, by the said Jogi Ram, rather there was no consolidation rasta carved in favour of the said Jogi Ram. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued, that the declining order, as made on the petition cast under Section 42 of the Act of 1948, is in derogation of the rights of the petitioner, to secure a revenue rasta, as thereby alone he can exercise his easementary rights, thus for his accessing his lands or his homestead.

3. It is not denied by any of the counsels appearing today before this Court, that a revenue rasta did come to be carved out, by the consolidation officer concerned, rather for the benefit of all the estate holders concerned. The principle regulating the exercise of a valid jurisdiction, by an authority seized with a petition, as cast under Section 42 of the Act of 1948, is limited within the twin principles, (i) inasmuch as no revenue rasta being carved, and, (ii) if a revenue rasta is carved yet there being obstructions and resistances, at the instance of any estate holder against any other estate holder, thus exercising thereons his easementary right. However, the above principles regulating the making of an affirmative order on a petition cast under Section 42 of the Act of 1948, rather visibly are not made out. Therefore, the impugned order prima facie, does not suffer from any infirmity or perversity, inasmuch as, thereby breach being caused to the above principles regulating the exercising of a valid jurisdiction, on a petition cast under Section 42 of the Act of 1948.

4. Be that as it may, the argument addressed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that one Jogi Ram from whom, the petition lands became acquired by the petitioner under a registered deed of exchange, as executed in his favour, thus were not assigned any revenue rasta, and, that thereby the impugned order, suffers from a grave fallacy or is flawed, also does not deserve, its becoming accepted by this Court. The reason for making the above inference stems from the factum, that neither the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to place on record, the registered deed of exchange, as became executed inter se the petitioner, and, one Jogi Ram, thus spelling thereins that neither the revenue rasta became recited in any of the covenants, as scribed thereins nor became detailed in a tatima appended therewith, whereby alone the above argument would succeed. However, when the said deed of exchange never became placed on record, therefore, it cannot be concluded, that the said Jogi Ram was never assigned any revenue rasta by the consolidation officer concerned, nor it can be concluded that he pr