JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

Admittedly the predecessors in interest of the deceased-respondent No.5 now substituted by his LRs, was a Gair Marusi, upon the lands concerned, as, carried in Rect. No.55//16, 25, 56/19, 20, 21, 22, Rect. No.63//1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, Rect. No.64//6, 7, 15/1. However, through an order of mutation drawn on 23.09.1963 by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, the predecessors in interest of since deceased-respondent No.5 in the instant petition, hence became conferred title as owner of the lands concerned, and, also the order (supra), resulted in the drawing of mutation No.277 on 29.01.1964. It is not disputed amongst the contesting litigants, that the consolidation proceedings which occurred in the Mohal concerned, did lawfully terminate prior thereto. Importantly, also there is no evidence, on record suggestive, that in the lawfully terminated consolidation proceedings, which but occurred prior thereto 1963, rather the land owners concerned, under whom the predecessor in interest of the deceased-respondent No.5, was a Gair Marusi rather did not become allotted a revenue passage, to their respective fields hence by the Consolidation Officer concerned. Therefore, initially an inference can be drawn, and, importantly when since the lawful termination of the consolidation proceedings but prior to 1963, and upto now, neither the land owners concerned, nor their successors in interest, have on the above ground rather made any motion under Section 42 of The East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1948"), qua hence a revenue rasta did come to be validly carved for the relevant purpose for all concerned.

2. Be that as it may, it was only in the year 2015, that the deceased-respondent No.5, moved Annexure P-2 before the Tehsildar, Consolidation Officer, Rania, claiming that he may be assigned a passage to access Rect. No.55 of which 16, 25, 56/19, 20, 21, 22, Rect. No.63//1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, Rect. No.64 of which 6, 7, 15/1, and, the said claim was premised on the ground, that a passage to the above field numbers was not assigned in the finalized consolidation scheme. Succinctly he claimed passage out of Killa No.57//1, 2, 10, 11, 20. The above killa numbers were evidently also a part and parcel of the finalized consolidation scheme which occurred prior to 1963. Moreover, it also appears that the said killa numbers became allotted to the petitioners rather in the said finalized consolidation scheme.

3. The above application resulted in the drawing of Annexure P-1, on 08.12.2015 by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak. A reading of the operative part of Annexure P-1, reveals that the Authority concerned, remanded the lis to the Tehsildar, Consolidation Officer Ranian but with a direction to him, to hear the affected parties, and, to inspect the site so that to the land of the applicant the shortest passage is assigned.

Impugned Verdict Is Annexure P-6

4. The Remandee Court through the drawing Annexure P-4, on 30.03.2016, allowed the petitioners' claim but subject to certain amendments as made thereins. The amendments made in the applicants' application, to which Annexure P-1 is assigned, resulted in the applicant making an appeal against Annexure P-4, before the Appellate Authority. The learned Appellate A