Judgment Jasbir Singh, J. 1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition with a prayer to issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash order Annexures P/2, dated 17.1.1985, whereby respondent No. 1 has granted passage, to the land of respondent No. 2. 2. Primary argument of the counsel for the petitioner is that once at the time of consolidation proceedings passage was allotted to the original owner, from whom the respondent No. 2 had purchased the land subsequently, he was not entitled to a separate passage for the land, purchased by him. In para 1 of the writ petition, it has been specifically stated that initially at the time of consolidation proceedings, land measuring 104 Kanals 14 Marias, which was shown encircled with blue line, was allotted to Dalip Singh, Ajit Singh and Gurnam Singh. Though the said land was situated along the passage, still passage BD was provided up to Khasra No. 102, where the well was situated. It has further been stated that respondent No. 2 had purchased 44 Kanals of land out of the said big tax in the year 1974 (land purchased by respondent No. 2 is shown encircled with red line in the site plan, Annexure P/l). Contents of para 1 of the writ petition have been admitted in reply, being a matter of record. In reply to para 3 of the reply, it has further been admitted that the land was purchased by respondent No. 2 in the year 1974. 3. This Court feels that contention of the counsel for the petitioners, that once during consolidation proceedings, at the time of effecting re-partition, passage was provided to the original landowner, subsequent purchaser is not entitled to any passage, is correct. It is evident from record that at the time of consolidation proceedings, 104 Kanals 19 Marlas of land was allotted to Dalip Singh etc. and passage was provided to the same, as such, respondent No. 2 was not a right-holder, qua the land he purchased in 1974. Under the circumstances, he can claim passage, only from the owner from whom he has purchased that land. Under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, jurisdiction of respondent No. 1 is very limited and interference can be made only if there was any defect in the consolidation scheme, implementation of re-partition or any other order passed. Under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, jurisdiction of respondent No. 1 is very limited and interference can be made only if there was any defect in the consolidation scheme, implementation of re-partition or any other order passed. Facts of the case are such that no such eventuality has arisen for respondent No. 1 to interfere in the present case. 4. Counsel for the petitioners has relied on the ratio of judgment in Banarsi Dass and Ors. v. Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana. and Ors., 1995 0 PLR 314, wherein this Court held as under:- "...Naturally-there was a change of land owners after the consolidation when the original landowner sold the land to some other parties. In that situation, if any dispute arises about the title of the land or other rights in the land and a question arises about the providing of the path to the land of a subsequent vendee from an original owner, then it falls within the jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities or by the concerned civil Courts and certainly not by the Director, Consolidation under Section 42 of the Act and that also on the application of a stranger who became interested in the property on purchase from the original landowner after a passage of 25 years or so...." 5. To the same effect is the ratio of judgment in Jaswinder Kaur and Ors. v. Additional Director, Consolidation and Ors., (2003-2)134 P.L.R. 160. In view of the facts mentioned above, this writ petition is allowed. Order under challenge is quashed, leaving it open to respondent No. 2 to claim passage, if any, from the original owner from whom he purchased the land.