222 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-24979-2016 (O&M) Reserved on : 06.05.2026 Date of Decision : 11.05.2026 Judgment Uploaded on :11.05.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced : Full Nar Singh ... Petitioner(s) Versus Director Consolidation, Haryana & Ors ... Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI Present : Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 9. ALKA SARIN, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 29.03.2016 (Annexure P-6) vide which the application filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Gurgaon-cum- Director Consolidation, Haryana under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1948 Act’) for providing him a passage has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the petitioner herein filed a petition under Section 42 of the 1948 Act averring therein that the petitioner had been using a rasta of 3 karams adjacent to Killa No.11/1 (South) YOGESH SHARMA 2026.05.11 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Chandigarh CWP-24979-2016 (O&M) 2 and 11/2 (North) of Rectangle No.21 since the time of his ancestors and the petitioner has been using the rasta through the above said Killa No.11/2 of Rectangle No.21 towards Northern side for ingress and egress as there was no other rasta to approach his fields. It was further averred that the petitioner had now come to know that a rasta bearing No.1163/1 (0-11) was existing towards Southern side of Killa No.11/2 and Northern side of Killa No.20 of Rectangle No.20 and, therefore, it was prayed that a rasta be provided of 3 karams adjacent to Kill No.11/1 (South) and 11/2 (North) of Rectangle No.21. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 29.03.2016 (Annexure P-6). Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been using the said rasta of 3 karams adjacent to Killa No.11/1 (South) and 11/2 (North) of Killa No.21 since the time of his ancestors for ingress and egress and there is no other passage available for the petitioner. It is further the contention that the rasta being used by the petitioner was not provided during consolidation and, therefore, the application had to be filed for providing a rasta. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.1-State has pointed out that there is already a rasta in existence as provided during the consolidation of Village Sehlang, Tehsil Kanina, District Mahendragarh in the year 1962-63. The passage was provided during consolidation to Killa No.20//14/2, 5/2, 6/1, 7/1, 21/1, 1/2, 10, 11/1. It is further the contention that at the time of consolidation the petitioner was not the owner of the land and became owner of Killa No.20//6/2, 7/3, 14/1, 15/1 vide a registered sale deed No.1815 dated 16.09.1997 having purchased the same from one Sh. Dev Dutt son of Sh. Ram Kumar. Learned State counsel has further pointed out that the YOGESH SHARMA 2026.05.11 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Chandigarh CWP-24979-2016 (O&M) 3 said fact that the petitioner is a subsequent purchaser does not find mention in the entire writ petition and the case set up is that the rasta is being used by the petitioner since the time of his ancestors. Learned State counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Parmal Singh & Ors Vs. Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala Cantt. & Ors [2013 (1) RCR (Civil) 193] to contend that a subsequent purchaser has no right to seek a path in respect of a scheme finalized earlier. Further reliance has been placed upon Satnam Singh Vs. Director Consolidation Punjab, Jalandhar & Anr [2025 (3) RCR (Civil) 356]. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. In the present case, there is no denial on the part of the petitioner that the petitioner is a subsequent purchaser and was not the owner of the property in question at the time when consolidation proceedings took place in the year 1962-63. 7. In the case of Parmal Singh (supra) it has been held as under : “7. Admittedly, the petitioners and respondent No. 3 have purchased the lands from Gurnam Singh who had sold the same after the consolidation of his holdings. The petitioners purchased the land falling in Khasra No. 9//22 on 27.09.1995, measuring 8 Kanals in which there was no stipulation that any rasta/passage has been carved out for land falling in Khasra No. 9//23, purchased by respondent No. 3 on 24.10.1988, much earlier to the execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioners. Moreover, respondent No. 3 had claimed path on the basis of some agreement with her vendor, to which the petitioners were YOGESH SHARMA 2026.05.11 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Chandigarh CWP-24979-2016 (O&M) 4 not a party. In this regard, it has been held in Jaswinder Kaur & others' case (supra), that "as per the respondents themselves, one path is available which was not considered sufficient by the Consolidation Authorities. The fact remains that the respondents are claiming another path on the basis of recital in the sale deed. Such recital cannot affect the rights of the petitioners who are not a party to such sale deed. There is no other cogent evidence that path as sought by respondent No. 3 to 5 was being used since the time of consolidation. The path now claimed was to be provided in the Scheme by Consolidation Authorities. But there is no evidence on record that such path in fact was ever used and provided. Therefore, keeping in view the judgments mentioned above, we are of the opinion that the subsequent purchasers have no right to seek path alleging only a "clerical mistake"." The Division Bench had relied upon the following decisions of this Court : 1. Banarsi Dass and others v. Director Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana and others, 1995(3) RRR 357 (P&H); 2. Smt. Nasib Kaur v. The Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, 1998(2) RCR (Civil) 650 (P&H); 3. Bakhtawar Singh v. State of Haryana, 2001(2) RCR (Civil) 16. YOGESH SHARMA 2026.05.11 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Chandigarh CWP-24979-2016 (O&M) 5 8. In all the aforesaid judgments, it has been held that the subsequent purchaser has no right to seek path in respect of a scheme finalised earlier as such right is available only to the right holders at the time of consolidation and not to the subsequent purchaser. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present writ petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 25.05.2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No. 1 is quashed.” 8. Further, in the case of Jaswinder Kaur Vs. Additional Director, Consolidation [2003 (3) RCR (Civil) 131] the same proposition was reiterated. Yet again in the case of Satnam Singh (supra), it has been reiterated that a subsequent purchaser has no right to seek a path in respect of a scheme finalized earlier. 9. In the present case, as noticed above, the petitioner was not a right holder when the consolidation took place in Village Sehlang, Tehsil Kanina, District Mahendragarh in the year 1962-63. The petitioner purchased the property only on 16.09.1997. The application under Section 42 of the 1948 Act was filed in the year 2016. It has been held by the Commissioner vide order dated 29.03.2016 (Annexure P-6) that the application had been filed 35 years after consolidation had taken place and 19 years after the purchase of the land. Further still, as held in the cases of Parmal Singh (supra), Jaswinder Kaur (supra) and Satnam Singh (supra), a subsequent purchaser, who is not a stakeholder/right holder at the time of consolidation and at the time of finalization of the scheme, has no right to seek a path/rasta. Such a right is available only to a right holder at the time of consolidation and not to YOGESH SHARMA 2026.05.11 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Chandigarh CWP-24979-2016 (O&M) 6 any subsequent purchaser who steps into the shoes thereafter. 10. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The same being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off. ( ALKA SARIN ) JUDGE 11.05.2026 Yogesh Sharma ( RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI ) JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO YOGESH SHARMA 2026.05.11 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. Chandigarh