JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.: - The petitioners have challenged order dated 25.05.2010 (Annexure P-2), passed by respondent No.1, whereby an application, for providing passage, filed by respondent No.3, under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 [for short “1948 Act”], has been allowed. 2. As per the case of the petitioners, consolidation proceedings in village Chholi, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Ambala (now District Yamuna Nagar) took place in the year 1954-55 and after the finalization of scheme, land falling in Khewat No.77, comprising in Khasra Nos.9//21, 22, 23, 27//7, 30//18, 19, 22, 23, 37//2/2, 3 and 73, total measuring 59 Kanals 19 Marlas, was allotted to Munshi Ram son of Sada Ram son of Jaswant, resident of village Chholi, as indicated in missal haqiat/jamabandi for the year 1954-55 (Annexure P-3). After the death of Munshi Ram, his son Gurnam Singh inherited his estate, who had sold a specific Khasra No.9//23 (5-19) to Savitri Devi (respondent No.3), vide registered sale deed No.657 dated 24.10.1988, on the basis of which mutation No.79 was sanctioned in her favour on 11.04.1990. The petitioners also purchased one specific Khasra No.9//22 from Gurnam Singh, vide registered sale deed No.901/1 dated 27.09.1995, on the basis of which mutation No.721 was sanctioned in their favour, vide order dated 27.01.1996. The said Khasra Number purchased by the petitioners was in possession of respondent No.3 as mortgagee, which was lateron redeemed. In the month of August 2007, respondent No.3 filed an application under Section 42 of the Act before respondent No.2 for providing her passage from the land of the petitioners and the performa respondents, i.e., Khasra Nos.9//23 and 16//7. The application remained pending before respondent No.2 for about 3 years but in the year 2010, when the Government of Haryana delegated powers to respondent No.1 to deal with the application under Section 42 of the Act, the application filed by respondent No.3 has been decided by respondent No.1 vide its impugned order dated 25.05.2010 (Annexure P-2) directing 2 karam passage to be provided to respondent No.3 from the land of the petitioners bearing Khasra No.9//22. 3. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 25.05.2010, the present writ petition has been filed in which notice of motion was issued and reply has been filed by respondent No.3, to which replication has also been filed by the petitioners. 4. 3. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 25.05.2010, the present writ petition has been filed in which notice of motion was issued and reply has been filed by respondent No.3, to which replication has also been filed by the petitioners. 4. Counsel for the petitioners has argued that respondent No.3, being subsequent purchaser, cannot claim a separate path after the expiry of such a long period of 9 years. In support of his submission, counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Jaswinder Kaur & others v. Additional Director, Consolidation & others, 2003(2) PLR 160. 5. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents have argued that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality because there is recital of a rasta in the sale deed executed by Gurnam Singh in favour of respondent No.3. 6. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Admittedly, the petitioners and respondent No.3 have purchased the lands from Gurnam Singh who had sold the same after the consolidation of his holdings. The petitioners purchased the land falling in Khasra No.9//22 on 27.09.1995, measuring 8 Kanals in which there was no stipulation that any rasta/passage has been carved out for land falling in Khasra No.9//23, purchased by respondent No.3 on 24.10.1988, much earlier to the execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioners. Moreover, respondent No.3 had claimed path on the basis of some agreement with her vendor, to which the petitioners were not a party. In this regard, it has been held in Jaswinder Kaur & others’ case (supra), that “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 No.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. There is no other cogent evidence that path as sought by respondent No.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”.” The Division Bench had relied upon the following decisions of this Court: 1. Banarsi Dass and others v. Director Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana and others, 1995(3) RRR 357 (P&H); 2. Smt. Nasib Kaur v. The Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, 1998(2) RCR (Civil) 650 (P&H); 3. Bakhtawar Singh v. State of Haryana, 2001(2) RCR (Civil) 16. 8. In all the aforesaid judgments, it has been held that the subsequent purchaser has no right to seek path in respect of a scheme finalized earlier as such right is available only to the right holders at the time of consolidation and not to the subsequent purchaser. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present writ petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 25.05.2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.1 is quashed.