KULDEEP TIWARI, J.

1. The instant writ petition accentuates the ill employment of exercise of jurisdiction, as assumed by the respondent No.2-Director (Consolidation) concerned, while surpassing the original jurisdiction bestowed in him. The respondent No.2- Director (Consolidation) concerned, through an order made on 26.03.2008 (Annexure P-9), upon Case No.208/2007, as instituted under Section 42 of The East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of

1948’), allowed the exchange of land, which is undisputedly a ‘Gair Mumkin Rasta’ and vests in the Gram Panchayat concerned, with the land of private respondent No.3 herein.

3. The rendition of order dated 26.03.2008 (Annexure P-9) triggered the petitioners to march towards this Court through instituting the instant writ petition, thereby, assailing the validity of the order (supra), inter alia on the ground, that Section 42 of the Act of 1948 does not confer any jurisdiction upon the respondent No.2- Director (Consolidation) concerned, to allow the exchange of land of Gram Panchayat with any private individual.

4. The petitioners have filed this writ petition respectively in the capacity of a lessee to the extent of 1/3 share, and, owner to the extent of 1/3 share, of the land comprised in Khewat/Khatoni No.986min/1192, Rect.

No.38, Killa No.21(3-2), 22(8-0), 23(8-0), Rect. No. 39, Killa No.1(2-9), 2(8-

0), 3(8-0), total measuring 37 Kanals 11 Marlas, situated in the revenue estate of Village Janoli, Tehsil and District Palwal.

5. The facts, as averred in the writ petition, are that a passage bearing No.169min and 220, which leads to the fields of the petitioners, was provided to the estate-holders of the village concerned, at the time when consolidation operations were held in the village concerned. On 07.12.2017, the respondent No.3, a private company, while claiming to have purchased about 75 acres of land in the village concerned from the respective owners, filed an application under Section 42 of the Act of 1948 before the respondent

No.2- Director (Consolidation) concerned, seeking transfer of the passage (supra) in its favour and in lieu thereof, it offered to transfer the land under its ownership in favour of the Gram Panchayat concerned for carving out a new passage. The transfer of passage (supra) was asked for, on the premise, that it has become redundant and defunct. The passage (supra) was offered to be indemnified by the respondent No.3 through providing its own land from Killa

No.38//3/2, which adjoins the area of the Gram Panchayat concerned.

6. It is interesting to note that the then Sarpanch of the village concerned had, unhesitatingly and delightedly, conceded to the proposal of the respondent No.3 by extending her “No Objection”. Based upon the uncontested factum of the passage (supra) being redundant and defunct, as also the “No Objection” coming from the Gram Panchayat concerned, the respondent No.2- Director (Consolidation) concerned allowed the application (supra), through drawing the impugned order dated 26.03.2008 (Annexure

P9).

7. The order dated 26.03.2008 (Annexure P9) caused grievance to the petitioners, inasmuch as, upon transfer of the passage (supra) in favour of the respondent No.3 herein, the alleged solitary means of access to their land has been snatched, thereby depriving them of their easementary rights.

8. Upon notice of the present motion, the respondent No.3 filed its reply, thereby primarily challenging the locus standi of the petitioners. It is averred in the reply that the respondent No.2- Director (Consolidation) concerned did not exceed his jurisdiction while passing the order (Annexure

P-9), as he did not indeed made any order for exchange of lands. Rather through the said order, which is founded upon “No Objection” of the Gram Panchayat concerned, the respondent No.2 had merely