IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.113 Gram Panchayat village State of Punjab and others CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE M Present : Mr. D. S. Bhinder Mr. Shekhar Verma, Addl. A. G., Punjab. DEEPAK SIBAL, J 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner Panchayat of village Majri, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana to challenge order dated 23.05.2024, passage in the village, which had been finalized during consolidation proceedings, has been 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the undisputed facts the consolidation proceedings village Majri, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana. On 19.0 No. 3 to 7, who were the Section 42 of the Fragmentation) Act, 1948 said application was allowed by respondent No. 2 t 23.05.2024. Respondents No. 16 and IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Gram Panchayat village Majri Versus and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA D. S. Bhinder, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Shekhar Verma, Addl. A. G., Punjab. * * * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner Panchayat of village Majri, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana to challenge order , passed by respondent No. 2, through which passage in the village, which had been finalized during consolidation proceedings, has been altered. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the undisputed facts which have emerged the consolidation proceedings in the year 1956, village Majri, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana. On 19.0 No. 3 to 7, who were the inhabitants of the village, filed an application under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevent ) Act, 1948 seeking therein alteration application was allowed by respondent No. 2 t Respondents No. 16 and 17, who were a IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-14942-2025 Date of decision : 05.08.2025 .…. Petitioner ..... Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL SUBHAS MEHLA Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Shekhar Verma, Addl. A. G., Punjab. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner-Gram Panchayat of village Majri, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana to challenge order through which the course of a passage in the village, which had been finalized during consolidation After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the emerged are that on the conclusion of in the year 1956, a passage was earmarked in village Majri, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana. On 19.04.2023 respondents of the village, filed an application under East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of ation of the said passage. The application was allowed by respondent No. 2 through order dated 7, who were also co-villagers of SHAMSHER SINGH 2025.08.13 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh CWP-14942-2025 respondents No. 3 to 7, challenged the order dated 23.05.2024 before this Court through filing of a writ petition being CWP another vs. State of Punjab and others by a Co-ordinate Bench on 24. 24.10.2024 was then tested before the Su Leave to Appeal Punjab and others Court. The order dated 23.05.2024 passed by respondent No. 2, to be challenged before this Court of the petitioner-Gram Panchayat. 3. The respondent No. 2 the course of a passage in the village order has already passed in CWP-19177 in public interest and for which all a compensated. In this regard, it would be useful to refer to the following observations made by (Annexure P could not have invoked the remedy under Section 42 of the East (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for A perusal of the order passed goes on to show interest inasmuch as on account of the religious place being side of the passage, it was difficult for turning the combine agricultural implements and on this account, the passage as such recorded on North side of Khasra No.25//19 and 20 was sought to be Petitioners are being duly compensated for the land which will be taken side by giving land on the Southern side of the said field. It is in such circumstances respondent is joint and in future they will find difficult for doing agriculture in last khasra, side and also on order being passed. It is also pertinent to mention that apart from the petitioners the other respondents have not chosen to challenge the which is apparently for the benefi [ 2 ] respondents No. 3 to 7, challenged the order dated 23.05.2024 before this Court through filing of a writ petition being CWP-19177 vs. State of Punjab and others, which petition of theirs was dismissed ordinate Bench on 24.10.2024. The 24.10.2024 was then tested before the Supreme Court through filing of (C) No(s). 408/2025- Malkit Singh and another vs. Sta Punjab and others, which also met the same fate as their petition before this The order dated 23.05.2024 passed by respondent No. 2, before this Court, for the second time, but Gram Panchayat. order impugned through the instant petition in the exercise of revisionary powers passage in the village, has been ordered t been upheld by this Court through its order dated 24.10.2024, 19177-2024, on the ground that the alteration lic interest and for which all affected persons had also been duly compensated. In this regard, it would be useful to refer to the following made by this Court in the aforesaid order dated 24. “The present petitioners seek setting aside of the order dated (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.2 on the ground that could not have invoked the remedy under Section 42 of the East (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for A perusal of the order passed goes on to show interest inasmuch as on account of the religious place being side of the passage, it was difficult for turning the combine agricultural implements and on this account, the passage as such recorded on North side of Khasra No.25//19 and 20 was sought to be Petitioners are being duly compensated for the land which will be taken side by giving land on the Southern side of the said field. It is in such circumstances the authorities have also found the objection that the land of the respondent is joint and in future they will find difficult for doing agriculture in hasra, is not acceptable as said patch of land has approaches on the side and also on the Northern side which is further now being widened order being passed. It is also pertinent to mention that apart from the petitioners the other respondents have not chosen to challenge the which is apparently for the benefit of the general public. respondents No. 3 to 7, challenged the order dated 23.05.2024 before this Court 19177-2024-Malkit Singh and which petition of theirs was dismissed The order of this Court dated preme Court through filing of Special Malkit Singh and another vs. State of which also met the same fate as their petition before this The order dated 23.05.2024 passed by respondent No. 2, is now sought for the second time, but now at the instance order impugned through the instant petition was passed by revisionary powers and through the same, has been ordered to be altered. The said through its order dated 24.10.2024, on the ground that the alteration of the passage was ffected persons had also been duly compensated. In this regard, it would be useful to refer to the following order dated 24.10.2024: - “The present petitioners seek setting aside of the order dated 23.05.2024 respondent No.2 on the ground that respondent No.2 could not have invoked the remedy under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Act’). A perusal of the order passed goes on to show that the same is done in public interest inasmuch as on account of the religious place being situated on Northern side of the passage, it was difficult for turning the combine and passing of agricultural implements and on this account, the passage as such which is recorded on North side of Khasra No.25//19 and 20 was sought to be widened. Petitioners are being duly compensated for the land which will be taken from their side by giving land on the Southern side of the said field. It is in such the authorities have also found the objection that the land of the respondent is joint and in future they will find difficult for doing agriculture in the is not acceptable as said patch of land has approaches on the Western the Northern side which is further now being widened by the order being passed. It is also pertinent to mention that apart from the present two petitioners the other respondents have not chosen to challenge the said order t of the general public. SHAMSHER SINGH 2025.08.13 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh CWP-14942-2025 2. cognizance of the application filed by the private respondents under Section 42 of the Act is justified as the authorities are utilizing the usage of the agri to its optimum best. Therefore, the methodology which has been adopted by the consolidation authorities as such, cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality or irregularity which would warrant interference under Article 226/227 of Cons 3. dismissed.” 4. The challenge to the afore quoted order before the Supreme Court resulted in the dismissal of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 408/2025 Singh and another vs. State of Punjab and others following order: - “Having heard learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, we see absolutely no reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of our jurisdicti Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.” 5. In the light of the above, the matter the alteration of the passage in the village 6. Dismissed. 05.08.2025 shamsher [ 3 ] In such circumstances, the action of the official respondents taking cognizance of the application filed by the private respondents under Section 42 of the Act is justified as the authorities are utilizing the usage of the agri to its optimum best. Therefore, the methodology which has been adopted by the consolidation authorities as such, cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality or irregularity which would warrant interference under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India. As such finding no merit in the present petition, same is hereby dismissed.” The challenge to the afore quoted order before the Supreme Court resulted in the dismissal of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 408/2025 Singh and another vs. State of Punjab and others “Having heard learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, we see absolutely no reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.” In the light of the above, the matter with regard to the challenge to the alteration of the passage in the village stands conclusively settled Dismissed. Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No In such circumstances, the action of the official respondents taking cognizance of the application filed by the private respondents under Section 42 of the Act is justified as the authorities are utilizing the usage of the agricultural land to its optimum best. Therefore, the methodology which has been adopted by the consolidation authorities as such, cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality or irregularity which would warrant interference under Article 226/227 As such finding no merit in the present petition, same is hereby The challenge to the afore quoted order before the Supreme Court resulted in the dismissal of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 408/2025- Malkit Singh and another vs. State of Punjab and others on 15.01.2025 through the “Having heard learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, we see absolutely no reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of our on under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Special Leave with regard to the challenge to stands conclusively settled. [DEEPAK SIBAL] JUDGE [SUBHAS MEHLA] JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No SHAMSHER SINGH 2025.08.13 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh