Hemant Gupta, J. - (1.) THE challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, exercising the powers of Director, conferred under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short, "the Act"), on 06.09.1985, providing a two Karams wide passage from Khasra Nos. 2299, 2293 south -east. The Petitioners, herein, were to be compensated for such passage out of Respondent's Khasra No. 2291 south to the extent of equal area.
(2.) IN the site plan Annexure P -1, the land owned by the Petitioners is shown in black colour, whereas the land owned by sons of Natha Singh is shown in green colour and that of the private Respondents, herein, is shown in yellow colour. Earlier vide order dated 11.03.1981, the Respondents, herein, were given right of passage by extending passage ABC comprised in Khasra No. 3109 to make up the omission to provide passage to the land of the private Respondents. Such order was set aside on 03.06.1982 as such order was passed without hearing the effected parties. Thereafter, the learned Director, in its order dated 11.08.1983 found that passage can be given by extending the passage already in existence up to Khasra No. 2280. Such passage is comprising in Khasra Nos. 2283 and 2261 reflected as XYZ in Annexure P -1. The said order passed by the Director was again recalled on 22.11.1983 vide Annexure P -7 when it was found that some of the effected parties have not been heard. It is, thereafter, the impugned order has been passed on 06.09.1985 by granting passage adjacent to the canal Marked 'FG' in the site plan Annexure P -1 through the land of the Petitioners. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has vehemently argued that during the consolidation proceedings, Khasra No. 2264 was provided for passage up to point 'X', therefore, XYZ is the reasonable and appropriate extension of the passage, whereas vide the impugned order, passage FG has been provided, which is not just and proper, therefore, the order passed by the Director is liable to be set aside.
(3.) A comparative perusal of three options available to provide access to the land of the private Respondents, shows that points 'FG' is the best solution. The option of passage CDE is, though extension of passage ABC, but it bifurcates the land of another land owner. The passage XYZ is through the land of the Petitioners and adjacent to the land of the sons of Natha Singh, but is not a straight passage. It has two bends. Such passage is not beneficial to the optimum utilization of the agricultural land. The passage 'FG' is out of land of the Petitioners, but adjoining the existing 'khal'. The Petitioners have been ordered to be compensated with equivalent land out of the land of the Respondents herein. Since the passage, now contemplated to be provided, is adjacent to the 'khal', it does not bifurcate any holding of any of the parties and is straight passage.;