Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. In this writ petition, the challenge is to the order dated 20.10.2000 passed by the Additional Director Consolidation, Punjab in an application filed by private respondent Nos.3 to 5. 2. The consolidation in the village Gattwali took place in the year 1958-59. Respondent Nos.3 to 5 moved a petition in August, 1999 with a prayer to correct "clerical mistake" not showing the path in the record. Respondent Nos.3 to 5 are alleged to be purchasers of the land in the year 1987 and 1989. Respondents have claimed that the forefathers of their vendors were the right holders/proprietors of the village Gattwali and consolidation authorities considered that one path is not sufficient and for that reason consolidation authorities provided two paths to the forefathers of the vendors of the petitioners. It will be beneficial to reproduce para 3 of the petition:- "That the petitioners vendors forefathers were big right holders of the village of Gattwali. So, at that time, consolidation authorities considered that one path is not sufficient and for that reason consolidation authorities provided two paths to the holding of the petitioners vendors forefathers. One path was provided by the consolidation authorities towards northern side of khasra No.44//ll/2, 12/2, 8/1, 7/1, 6, 43//1/2, 2/2/1 and other path (now disputed path) provided by the consolidation authorities at the spot from the individual holding of the petitioners vendors forefathers through khasra No.43//23/2/l. 9/2 min 12/1 min, 22/1 min especially to reach khasra No.46//5, 6, 47//1 to 10, 48//1 to 10 etc. to more clarify the matter. Naqal Sajra Kishatwar of village Gattwali is attached herewith as annexure P-2." 3. The Additional Director Consolidation, Punjab allowed the application on the basis of the photographs and from the entries made in the registered sale deed produced on record to the effect that the path is existing at the spot from the time of consolidation. The petitioners have challenged the said order, inter-alia, on the ground that respondent Nos.3 to 5, after a long lapse of time, have no right to path in respect of scheme of consolidation finalised in the year 1958-59. It was further pointed out that the respondents being purchasers from the original right holders have no right to claim such path. The petitioners have challenged the said order, inter-alia, on the ground that respondent Nos.3 to 5, after a long lapse of time, have no right to path in respect of scheme of consolidation finalised in the year 1958-59. It was further pointed out that the respondents being purchasers from the original right holders have no right to claim such path. The challenge was also made on the ground that the respondents have not sought condonation of delay while filing a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holding (Consolidation and prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 4. We have heard the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case. 5. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon Banarsi Dass and Ors. v. Director Consolidation of Holdings Haryana and Ors., 1995 P.L.J. 314, Smt. Nasib Kaur v. The Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, (1998-3)120 P.L.R. 713 and Bakhtawar Singh v. State of Haryana, (2001-2)128 P.L.R. 367 to contend that the subsequent purchaser has no right to seek path in respect of a scheme finalised earlier. Such right is available only to the right holders at the time of consolidation and not to the subsequent purchaser. The claim of the respondents is based only on the basis of recital in the sale deed of the year 1989. 6. 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 Nos.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". 7. Still further the application for correction of "clerical mistake" was moved in the year 1999, and that too, without any application for condonation of delay, after 40 years of consolidation. 8. 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". 7. Still further the application for correction of "clerical mistake" was moved in the year 1999, and that too, without any application for condonation of delay, after 40 years of consolidation. 8. The counsel for the respondents relied upon Shri Jagtar Singh v. Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab and Anr., (1984)86 P.L.R. 364 (F.B.) to contend that the period prescribed under Rule 18 will apply only for petitions filed against orders passed and the word order in Rule 18 does not include within its perview scheme prepared or confirmed or repartition made. 9. It has been held by the Honble Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat Kakran v. Additional Director of Consolidation and Anr., J.T. 1997(8) S.C. 430 that an application under Section 42 of the Act cannot be considered unless there is a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The Honble Supreme Court held that the application under Section 42 of the Act should be made within a reasonable time and the question will have to be decided on the facts of each case. 10. Keeping in view the fact that the vendors of respondent Nos.3 to 5 the right holders have not moved any application for 40 years after consolidation, is a fact which is sufficient to return a finding that no path as sought to be contended by the respondents was provided at the time of consolidation. The explanation for moving application in the year 1999 is wholly vague. It has been only stated that the respondents have tried to demolish the path by showing that it is not shown in the record by the consolidation staff. Such allegation in the application under Section 42 of the Act is not sufficient for condonation of delay. The respondents have not moved any separate application supported by affidavit explaining the circumstances to seek permission of the Court to file the application after 40 years of the consolidation. 11. In view of the above, we find that the order passed by the learned Additional Director Consolidation is wholly illegal and cannot be sustained having been passed after 40 years of consolidation and even though there exists a path for the use of respondent Nos.3 to 5. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. 11. In view of the above, we find that the order passed by the learned Additional Director Consolidation is wholly illegal and cannot be sustained having been passed after 40 years of consolidation and even though there exists a path for the use of respondent Nos.3 to 5. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. Order dated 20.10.2000 (Annexure P.2) is set aside with no order as to costs.