Dismissed

Harish Kumar v. Commissioner Hissar Division Hissar and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Nov 2022CWP/17382/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a remand order dated 30.03.2022 under the East Punjab Holding Consolidation Act. The court held the concern that the lower officer would be compelled to carve a passage from the petitioner's land misplaced, as the remand for record inspection and site visit did not mandate such an outcome.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of, reaffirming the impugned remand order.

Harish Kumar Vs Commissioner Hissar Division… — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2022)

¶1

�� 

¶2

�� 

¶3

�� !"#��#$%&%�'(��

�!)%&*�+,-!)�

��#"%"%�'#)

��

��--%&&%�'#)��%&&!)��%.%&%�'��%&&!)�!'/��"*#)&��

¶8

��#&0�'/#'"&�

¶9

��(1��2�3��4��4��3�4��33�

��5�3��4��4��

��

��

3�4��336��)!7��

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking setting aside of order dated 30.03.2022, Annexure P-4, passed by the Commissioner, Hissar Division Hissar, whereby petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holding Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1948 ( for short ‘Consolidation Act’) filed by respondents no. 3 and 4 has been remanded to the Tehsildar and Consolidation Officer, Dabwali with a direction to pass appropriate order.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents no.3 and 4 had filed an application under Section 42 of the Consolidation Act, after more than 60 years of consolidation, seeking passage to their land

¶16

SANJAY KHAN 2022.11.23 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

�� 

¶18

comprised in rectangle No. 121, killa no. 9/2 10, 11, 12, 13/1, 17/2, 18, 19/1, rectangle no. 122 killa no. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 18, 19 and 20 situated in village Godikan. The Commissioner, Hissar Division, vide order dated 30.03.2022, observed that passage does not seem to have been carved out to the area of the applicant in rectangle no. 122//9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and that a passage can be given only after going through the complete record and inspection of the disputed land. The said respondents, it is stated seek passage from within the land of the petitioner in killa no. 1/1 and 1/2, which is totally unjustified keeping in view the fact that they have a passage through killa no. 5/1 and 5/2 belonging to one Gopi Ram. The aspect of the existing passage to petitioner’s land to the west of the khal, as depicted in the Aks Musavi , Annexure P-5, it is contended, has not been considered by the Commissioner.

¶19

In this view of the matter, remand by the Commissioner to the Tehsildar and Consolidation Officer, Dabwali, it is submitted, is not made out. Apprehension raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the observation in para 6 of impugned order dated 30.03.2022, Consolidation Officer may not even take into consideration the fact that the passage to the land of respondents no.3 and 4, which is already in existence, is sufficient and there is no requirement of unnecessarily bifurcating petitioner’s land.

¶20

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we find this apprehension to be misplaced as the Commissioner has remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer to go through the complete record and inspect the disputed land and thereafter, pass appropriate orders. There is indeed no direction or mandate to necessarily carve out a passage from the petitioner’s

¶21

land itself. Perusal of order dated 30.03.2022 in vernacular reveals that the SANJAY KHAN 2022.11.23 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

�� 

¶23

Commissioner has in-fact observed that entire record be examined and the site be inspected by the Consolidation Officer and thereafter, a speaking order be passed in this respect. Therefore, we find no ground for interference for setting aside order dated 30.03.2022, Annexure P-4. Needless to say, the Consolidation Officer would look into and scrutinize the entire record including the claim of existing passage, inspect the disputed area and only then pass appropriate order as may be required, after associating all the concerned parties including any other person/ stakeholder who may be affected.

¶24

Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶25

�� .#-8#)��6��  �� !�� "#�� !��

¶26

SANJAY KHAN 2022.11.23 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Harish Kumar v. Commissioner Hissar Division Hissar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harish Kumar v. Commissioner Hissar Division Hissar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arjan Singh & Ors. Vs Addl. Director of Consolidation Pb & Ors.

Daya Chand Vs State of Haryana and Others

Surinder Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Others

Bhan Chand Vs Commissioner Hisar Division Hisar and Others

Amrinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Ved Ram and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others