R. S. Singh, J. - (1.) :-
(2.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 4-12-1979 dismissing the petitioners' revision. The facts of the case, in brief, are that after the finalisation of the allotment of chak proceedings and putting the chak-holders in possession over their respective chaks an application was moved on 10-7-1979 by respondent no. 3 on the allegation that in front of his house the petitioners have got their chak no. 243 which was carved out on plot nos. 394, 395 and 396 etc. According to respondent no. 3 at the time of allotment the Assistant Consolidation Officer provided a public pathway from north to south on the eastern side on plot no. 394 etc., chak no. 243, but the same has been demolished by the petitioners. Therefore, it was prayed that public pathway be restored and if possible a fresh general public pathway be provided on the eastern side of chak no. 243 in the interest of the villagers and the petitioners may be compensated with the Gaon Sabha land which will be in the interest of general public. An objection was filed on behalf of the petitioners contesting the aforesaid application on several grounds including that the application is not maintainable at this stage and that the consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to provide a public pathway. By another application one more ground was alleged that the application was highly belated. The Consolidation Officer considered the application of respondent no. 3 and the objection of the petitioners and came to the conclusion that the public pathway, chakroad or nali in public interest can be provided at any stage on the claim of any tenure-holder. The Consolidation Officer after overruling the objection of the petitioners directed the Assistant Consolidation Officer to make local inspection and to report about the necessity and justification for providing a public pathway. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer the petitioners preferred a revision which was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Codsolidation. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid orders of the Consolidation authorities before this Court in this writ petition.
(3.) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent no. 3 had made an application for providing a private pathway for him for going from his house to his cattle-shed. According to him such an application after the finalisation of the chak proceedings was not maintainable as it was highly belated and the consolidation authorities had no jurisdiction to consider the same. He in support of his contention has relied on a decision reported in Sri pat v. Haridwar, 1980 AWC 146. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the application for providing a public pathway which was moved on behalf of respondent no. 3 was for a public pathway and not for a private pathway. It was further contended by the learned counsel that the consolidation authorities had jurisdiction to entertain such an application at any stage to provide a public pathway in public interest. In support of his contentions he relied upon the decisions reported in Rajpati Tewari v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, CMW No. 8605 of 1978 D/- 28-2-1980 (Alld.) and Smt. Lal Dei v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, CMW No. 7996 of 1979 D/- 20-8-1980 (Alld.);