Sukhdev Singh Kang, J. - (1.) BAL Kaur and others have through this writ petition challenged the order dated 2nd February, 1977, of the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jullundur passed on a petition filed by Niranjan Singh under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter called ' the Act'). The Petitioners have assailed (his order on the ground that they were not heard when the impugned order was passed. This plea was controverted by the private Respondents. They had averred that Mehnga Ram, husband of Petitioner No. (sic), and Ganga Ram, father of Petitioners Nos 3 to 5 were present and had been heard.
(2.) MR . M.L. Sarin, the learned Counsel for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3, has raised a preliminary objection that the Petitioners had no locus standi to present this petition. By the impugned order, the lands of the Petitioners have not been effected The old path was the property of the Gram Panchayat. The new path also remains its property. The new path has not been curved out in the lands of the Petitioners. The previous path also did not pass through their lands. It is not the case of the Petitioners that by shifting of the path, their lands had become unaccessible. The Gram Panchayat was the owner of the path and if it had any grievance against the impugned order of the Additional Director, it could have filed a writ petition in this Court. Mr A. S Cheema, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, has argued that since the Petitioners used to avail of the previous path and that the same was more convenient to them, so they were entitled to be beard by the Additional Director. At this stage, it will be useful to reproduce Section 42 of the Act: 42 Power of State Government to call for proceedings - The State Government may at any time for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed, scheme prepared or confirmed or repartition made by any officer under this Act, call for and examine the record of any case pending before or disposed of by such officer and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit; Provided that no order, scheme or repartition shall be varied or reversed without giving the parties interested notice to appear and opportunity to be heard except in case where the State Government is satisfied that the proceedings have been vitiated by unlawful consideration. It is manifestly clear that the notice has to be given only to the parties interested The parties interested are these whose rights are affected. The Petitioners under Section 4 2 of the Act did not want any path through the lands of the writ -Petitioners. So, the Petitioners were not required to be made a party or heard before shifting the path Consequently, they have no locus standi to challenge the order of the Additional Director The Panchayat whose property had been affected by the impugned order has not raised any grievance. So, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed No costs. ;