JUDGMENT

Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral)

Admittedly, the consolidation proceedings in the Mohal concerned, took place in the year 1960-61. It is also apparent upon a reading of the affidavit, as tendered before this Court by the Naib Tehsildar concerned, rather in pursuance to the hereinafter extracted directions made upon him on 23.2.2023, by this Court, that in the said relevant consolidation proceedings, a revenue rasta was carved, and, that it was of a dimension of 1 karam, and, also that the revenue rasta with the said dimension, is also yet existing at the site concerned.

"On the subsequent date of hearing, the learned State counsel is directed to, on affidavit, to be sworn by the learned Collector of the revenue d1strict concerned, or, by the consolidation officer concerned, ensure that disclosures are made therein(s) that, in the consolidation scheme, which was prepared by the consolidation officer concerned, a revenue passage was carved for the benefit of all the stakeholders, besides, the said affidavit shall also carry a disclosure whether such a revenue passage was carved after permissible deduction(s) being made from the land holdings of the cultivator(s) concerned."

2. Be that as it may, the instant lis has a chequered h1story, as certain aggrieved, from the consolidation scheme, thus rather from the width of the said rasta, hence made a motion before the Settlement Officer concerned. Through a decision made on 7.3.1961 (Annexure P- 1), upon the relevant motion, to which appeal No. 103 became assigned, thereons the Settlement Officer concerned, proceeded to make amendments to the dimension of the revenue rasta, inasmuch as, his increasing its width from its recorded width of 1 karam to 2 karams. Subsequently, he proceeded to allow the said claim of the aggrieved stake holders concerned.

3. The aggrieved therefrom proceeded to institute there against an appeal (Annexure P-4) bearing case No.84 of 1990, before the Addl. Director, Consolidation, Haryana, Rohtak. On the said appeal as revealed by Annexure P-4, a verdict of remand was made to the Settlement Officer concerned. However, in the said order of remand, a direction was made upon the remandee authority, to consider the provisions of the scheme, while proceeding to make an adjudication upon the relevant lis. The order of remand became obeyed by the remandee authority, and, resulted in the drawing of Annexure P-5. A reading of Annexure P-5, reveals that the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), thus agreed with the ordered amendments, to the consolidation scheme, as also to the subsequent thereto prepared revenue records, as initially became made through Annexure P-1. Resultantly, the aggrieved concerned, again preferred an appeal before the Asstt. Director of Consolidation of Holdings, Rohtak, who through Annexure P-6, again made an order of remand, thus with the same conditions as were carried in Annexure P-4. The said order of remand, resulted in the remandee authority, thus drawing Annexure P-7, whose perusal again reveals, that the amendments, rather through Annexure P-1, to the consolidation scheme, as also to the subsequent thereto prepared revenue records, as, relates to the dimension(s) of the revenue rasta, thus thereby became concurred. Subsequently, a motion there against was carried to the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana, who through an order, as enclosed in Annexure P-10, again agreed with the verdict as enclosed in Annexure P-1. The said order resulted in the aggrieved preferring CWP No.14137 of 1993, before this Court. On the said writ petition, the hereinafter extracted directions were made upon the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar, thus exercising the powers of Commissioner under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation), Act, 1948 on 9.4.2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1948'):

"Consequently, without expressing any opinion on the necessity of providing a 02 karam passage or