Judgment Jasbir Singh, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue writ of certiorari to quash order dated January 30, 1985. Annexure P-2, passed by respondent No. 1. 2. Petitioners are residents of village Faizpur and it is their case that consolidation proceedings were finalised in their village in the year 1963. During re-partition. Khasra No. 161 was allotted to their father Havela Singh. There was some discrepancy in showing areas allotted to various right holders. Then their father moved an application under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, (for short the Act), which was disposed of by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated December 30, 1978, vide which, no change was made so far as allotment of Khasra No. 161 to the father of the petitioners was concerned. Only dimensions of the Khasra numbers, allotted to some right holders, were changed. Order passed by the Consolidation Officer became final as the same was not challenged by anybody in the village. In the year 1983, after a period of about five years of the passing of the order, respondent No. 2, who is not a right holder in village Faizpur, filed an application under Section 42 of the Act with a prayer that area of Khasra No. 161, which was allotted to father of the petitioners, be declared a common passage instead of ownership of the petitioners. It was his positive case that the area in dispute was being used by the right holders as a passage and the same had wrongly been shown and allotted to the petitioners/their father as Abadi area/residential area. That application was allowed by respondent No. 1 vide order dated January 30, 1985 (Annexure P-2). Hence this writ petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that as respondent No. 2 was not owner of any land in village Faizpur, no piece of land was allotted to him during consolidation proceedings and also vide order (Annexure P-1), as such he was not an aggrieved person and application moved by him under Section 42 of the Act was not maintainable. Counsel for the petitioners has further argued that while passing order under challenge, respondent No. 1 had transgressed his powers available to him under Section 42 of the Act. Counsel for the petitioners has further argued that while passing order under challenge, respondent No. 1 had transgressed his powers available to him under Section 42 of the Act. To pass order under challenge, respondent No. 1 had failed to indicate any defect in implementation of the scheme/re-partition and any order passed earlier. By giving a wrong finding that the property in dispute was being used as a passage, the same has been ordered to be converted as such. Counsel prays that the writ petition be allowed and the order under challenge be quashed as the same is without jurisdiction. 4. Shri M.S. Bedi, Advocate, appearing for respondent No. 2, has vehemently controverted arguments raised by counsel for the petitioners. By referring to contents of orders Annexures P-1 and P-2, he states that the land in dispute was left as a passage by father of the petitioners himself after selling adjoining land to various right holders. He has further stated that the order Annexure P-2 was passed after spot inspection and getting report from Assistant Consolidation Officer, wherein it was mentioned that the land in dispute was being used as a passage by the right holders. Shri Bedi further stated that the revenue estate of Village Faizpur and Bakhowal is one and Abadi of both villages from part of bigger revenue estate of village Shukarpura. He prays that the writ petition having no substance be dismissed. 5. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition deserves to be allowed. It is apparent from the records and not controverted at the time of arguments that the consolidation in village Faizpur was completed in the year 1963. During those proceedings, Khasra No. 161 was allotted to father of the petitioners. However, dimensions were not correctly shown. Father of the petitioners moved an application under Section 42 of the Act in the year 1978 and vide order Annexure P-1, no change was effected, so far as allotment of Khasra No. 161 to father of the petitioners is concerned, only dimensions of the Khasra number were changed vie said order. This fact has specifically been mentioned by respondent No. 2 in para No. 2 of his written-statement. While passing order Annexure P-2, respondent No. 1 had failed to give any j finding as to what was defect in allotment of land to the petitioners father. This fact has specifically been mentioned by respondent No. 2 in para No. 2 of his written-statement. While passing order Annexure P-2, respondent No. 1 had failed to give any j finding as to what was defect in allotment of land to the petitioners father. Simply be-cause land in dispute was being used as a common passage, respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction what-so-ever, in view of provisions of Section 42 of the Act, to declare the same as a passage. No defect in re-partition or allotment has been indicated while passing order Annexure P-2. Furthermore, a specific objection was raised by the petitioners that the respondent No. 2 was not a right holder and no land was allotted to him at the time of consolidation proceedings and also while passing order Annexure P-1, he was not entitled to file application under Section 42 of the Act. Relevant portion of Para No. 4 of the writ petition reads thus:- "4. That adjoining to the boundary of the village Faizpur falls village Bakhowal, wherein consolidation proceedings were adopted in the year 1962 and during repartition, Khasra No. 38 of Rectangle No. 15 was allotted to one Gian Singh. Subsequently, in the year 1967, out of it, a meager area of 0-5 marlas was sold by Gian Singh to respondent No. 2. The fact remains that respondent No. 2 was never a right holder of the village Bakhowal at the time of repartition and he had purchased this 0-5 marlas land to construct a house there. Since he had purchased the land from the above said Gian Singh, he could have asked for any passage from his vendor i.e. Gian Singh." Reply to above paragraph reads as under:- "4. The contents of para 4 are denied. At the time of purchasing the plot by the answering respondent from Gian Singh, the street was provided which starts right from the road of Batala to Dera Baba Nanak and there is no other street leads to the abadi." 6. From a reading of passages, extracted above, it is apparent that respondent No. 2, had virtually admitted that he was not a right holder when consolation proceedings took place in the village and vide order Annexure P-1, no land was allotted to him. It is further apparent that he had purchased the land from one Gian Singh in the year 1967. It is further apparent that he had purchased the land from one Gian Singh in the year 1967. In reply to para No. 4 of the writ petition, it has not specifically been asserted that the revenue estate of Village Bakhowal and Faizpur is one. Nothing has been brought on record to prove this fact. Once it is apparently proved on record that respondent No. 2 was not a right holder when consolidation proceedings was concluded in the village and he had purchased land in the year 1967 from one Gian Singh, who was a right holder in the adjoining village, this Court feels that respondent No. 2 was not entitled to move an application under Section 42 of the Act. Furthermore, if respondent No. 2 has no service path, he may claim the same from his predecessor or by way of easement of necessity from any adjoining right holder. As such, respondent No. 1 had no power to grant him the passage in view of facts and circumstances of the case. 7. In view of findings given above, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order Annexure P-2 is quashed.