JUDGEMENT Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.1.2012 rendered by the learned Additional District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharmshala in Civil Appeal (RBT) No.88-K/ 11/2007. 2. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as ‘plaintiffs’ for convenience sake) filed a suit on the ground that they were owners in possession of land bearing Khata No. 43 min, Khatauni No. 49 min, Khasra Nos.92, 158 kita 2 area measuring 0- 23-38 hectares and Khata No.45 min, Khatauni No. 51 min, Khasra Nos. 157, 187 and 188 kita 3 measuring 0- 48-03 hectares situated at Mohal Makrehar Mauza Pargor, Sub Tehsil Harchakkian, Tehsil and District Kangra, H.P. as per copy of jamabandi for the year 1994-95 Ex.P- 1. According to the plaintiffs, the consolidation took place in village Makrehar. The Consolidation Officer recorded the path as shown in red ink through the suit land in Ex.P-3, as per the scheme prepared by the consolidation authorities. The plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land and the defendant was having no right, title or interest except the path shown in red ink. Appellant- defendant (hereinafter referred to as ‘defendant’ for convenience sake) filed a revision before the Director Consolidation for increasing the width of path. The same was allowed by the Additional Director Consolidation vide Ex.P-4 on 5.1.2000. He remanded the matter to the Settlement Officer. Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Hamirpur vide order 6.7.2000 Ex.P-5 ordered to record the path in Khasra No.92/1 measuring 0-00-56 hectares and Khasra No. 157/2 measuring 0-00-68. According to the plaintiffs, this order was illegal. They also contended that there was alternative path passing through Khasra No.99. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration that the order of Additional Director (Consolidation) dated 5.1.2000 and order dated 6.7.2000 passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Hamirpur were null and void. The plaintiffs have also prayed for consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction. 3. The suit was contested by the defendant. The defendant has admitted that the suit land bearing Khasra Nos. 92, 157 and 158 were in the ownership of plaintiff. There was a Share-A am passage through the suit land for the ingress and egress of the inhabitants. The path was being used by the general public without any interruption. 3. The suit was contested by the defendant. The defendant has admitted that the suit land bearing Khasra Nos. 92, 157 and 158 were in the ownership of plaintiff. There was a Share-A am passage through the suit land for the ingress and egress of the inhabitants. The path was being used by the general public without any interruption. The consolidation authorities did not depict the actual width of the path. It is in these circumstances, an appeal was filed before the Director Consolidation. The orders passed by the Settlement Officer are legal and valid. According to him, trolleys and tractors were earlier passing through the path in dispute and at that time the plaintiffs did not raised any objection. The plaintiffs raised objection only on 3.10.1995. 4.The replication was filed by the plaintiff. The issues were framed by the learned trial court on 15.1.2002. The Civil Judge (Junior Division)-II, Kangra decreed the suit on 30.12.2006 whereby the orders of Additional Director of Consolidation dated 5.1.2000 Ex.P­4 and Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dated 6.7.2000 Annexure P-5 were set aside. It was further declared that the plaintiffs were exclusive owners in possession of the land comprised in Khata No. 43 min, Khatauni No. 49 min, Khasra No. 92 situated at Mohal Makrehar, Mauza Pargod, Sub Tehsil Harchakian, Tehsil and District Kangra alongwith land in Khata No. 45 min, Khatauni No. 51 min, Khasra No. 157. The defendants were also restrained from interfering in the suit land in any manner. The defendants preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala. He dismissed the same on 12.1.2012. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal. 5. Mr. Surender Saklani has strenuously argued that the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred under section 57 of the H.P. Consolidation of Holdings and Fragmentation Act. He then argued that both the courts below have misconstrued and misinterpreted the order dated 5.1.2000 and 6.7.2000. 6. I have heard Mr. Surender Saklani and have gone through the judgments carefully. 7. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land bearing khasra Nos.92, 157 and 158. The consolidation commenced in the village Makrehar in the year 1990-91. Missal Haquiat Ex.D-5 reflects the khasra numbers of the suit land. In Ex.P- 1 and Ex.P-2 the suit land has been recorded in the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs. The consolidation commenced in the village Makrehar in the year 1990-91. Missal Haquiat Ex.D-5 reflects the khasra numbers of the suit land. In Ex.P- 1 and Ex.P-2 the suit land has been recorded in the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs. The path was recorded with red ink during consolidation proceedings as per Aks Sajra Kistwar Ex.P-3 in Khasra No. 157 and 158. The consolidation proceedings have been concluded in the year 1990-91, however, the revision has been preferred by the defendant after ten years before the Additional Director Consolidation. He passed the order Ex.P-4 on 5.1.2000 and remanded the matter to the Settlement Officer. 8The Full Bench of this Court in Chuhniya Devi versus Jindu Ram, 1991 (1), Sim. L.C. 223 has held that the civil court has no jurisdiction to go into any question connected with the conferment of proprietary rights under section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 except in a case where it is found that the statutory authorities envisaged by the Act had not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure or where the provisions of the Act had not been complied with. 9.In Jankan Devi versus Smt. Leelan Devi, 2000 (2) S.L.J. 1194, learned Single Judge of this Court has held as under: “11. To effectuate its purpose of land reforms, the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 is a complete Code and has ruled out determination of any question connected therewith by a Civil Court. Therefore, an order made by a competent authority under the said Act is not open to challenge before a civil court so far it relates to the matters falling within the scope of section 104 thereof except in a case where it is found that the statutory authorities envisaged by the said Act had not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure or where the provisions of the Act had not been complied with (See Chuhniya Devi versus Jindu Ram, 1991 (1) Sim. L.C. 223.)” 10. It is evident from the evidence placed on record that the Additional Director Consolidation travelled beyond the provisions of the H.P. Consolidation of Holdings and Fragmentation Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for brevity sake) while passing order Annexure P-4 dated 5.1.2000. L.C. 223.)” 10. It is evident from the evidence placed on record that the Additional Director Consolidation travelled beyond the provisions of the H.P. Consolidation of Holdings and Fragmentation Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for brevity sake) while passing order Annexure P-4 dated 5.1.2000. The Additional Director Consolidation has over looked sections 14 and 15 of the Act and has also not taken into consideration the scheme framed under the Act. Since the order passed by the Additional Director Consolidation was without jurisdiction, the validity of the same has rightly been gone into by the civil court. The Additional Director Consolidation had directed the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Hamirpur to record the width of path on the spot running through Khasra Nos. 157 and 158. He had also directed that said path be shown in the revenue record as “Jumla Mushtarka Mal kan”. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) vide Ex.P-5 has observed that it was difficult to record the path in question as “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan” since under section 30 of the Act, land of all the owners was to be reduced, which was not permissible. The Additional Director has directed the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Hamirpur to record the width of the path running through Khasra Nos. 157 and 158. However, the Settlement Officer has carried out the path through Khasra No. 92/1 measuring 0-00-56 hectares and through Khasra No. 157/2 measuring 0-00-68 hectares. Initially, no passage was recorded through Khasra No.92. Now, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) has carved out the path through Khasra No. 92/1. He has deleted the path through Khasra No. 158. This was not permissible under the law. It is admitted case of the parties that the suit land is owned and possessed by the plaintiffs. According to jamabandis for the year 1999-2000 Ex. DA and Ex.DB, the path has been recorded through Khasra No. 92/1 measuring 0-00-56 hectares and Khasra No.157/2 measuring 0-00-68 hectares, meaning thereby to this extent of the aforesaid area, land of the plaintiffs recorded in jamabandis Ex.DA and Ex.DB has been reduced. The land of the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to be used for public path. There are no findings recorded by the Additional Director Consolidation and Settlement Officer (Consolidation) that the plaintiffs’ land was surplus. The land of the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to be used for public path. There are no findings recorded by the Additional Director Consolidation and Settlement Officer (Consolidation) that the plaintiffs’ land was surplus. It was necessary at the time of reserving the land for common purpose to hear the objections of all the tenure holders during the consolidation proceedings. It has come in the cross-examination of DW-2 Hans Raj that there is a public path through the land of Saligram and Rattan Chand and through this path, tractor is being plied. He has clarified that this path passes through the Shamlat land and this path is old. Thus, it is established that the defendant has got alternative path to ply the tractor. 11. Accordingly, both the courts below have correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties and there is no substantial question of law involved in the Regular Second Appeal and as such the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.