JUDGMENT Mr. Rajive Bhalla, J.: (Oral) - The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing order dated 10.03.2010, passed by the Director Land Record cum- Director Consolidation, Punjab, Jalandhar, dismissing his petition for grant of a path. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was allotted Rectangle No.14, Khasra No.21/2 during consolidation alongwith other property but inadvertently, no path was provided to this land. The petitioner began using a passage with consent of the private respondents. However, when the private respondents blocked this path, the petitioner had no option but to approach the Director Land Records for providing a path. It is further contended that despite acknowledging the error committed during consolidation proceedings, the Director Land Records, has dismissed the petition on the ground of delay and that private respondents cannot be compensated in case a path is provided through their land. It is argued that every parcel of land is to be provided with a path. In case the Director Land Records was of the opinion that a suitable path cannot be provided through the land of private respondents, he was duty bound to direct consolidation authorities to examine the matter and provide a suitable path to the land of the petitioner. 3. Counsel for the private respondents, however, contends that the impugned order does not suffer from any error as would require interference. It is denied that the petitioner was allowed to use their passage at any time whatsoever much less over the last 30/40 years. It is prayed that as finding recorded by the Director Land Records that the petitioner cannot be provided a path through the land of the private respondents, is correct, it should be affirmed. 4. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 5. During consolidation proceedings, a separate or a joint path is to be provided to each parcel of land. Without a passage, a landowner cannot possibly access his land thereby defeating the very object of consolidation. If a landowner, is not provided a path, he may approach the State Government, or its delegate, exercising power under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, for redressal of such a grievance and limitation would not stand in the way of such a plea. If a landowner, is not provided a path, he may approach the State Government, or its delegate, exercising power under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, for redressal of such a grievance and limitation would not stand in the way of such a plea. We, would at this stage, like to clarify that where the claim for a passage/path is based upon a subsequent purchase of a part of land or upon partition of land, consolidation authorities shall have no jurisdiction to provide a path as in such a situation, a party would be required to approach a civil court. Admittedly, the petitioner was not provided with a path, during consolidation. The Director Land Records has committed an error in dismissing his petition on account of delay. 6. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, we allow the writ petition, set aside order dated 10.03.2010 and remit the matter to the Director Land Records-cum-Director Consolidation, Punjab, Jalandhar, for providing a suitable path to the petitioner. 7. The needful be done within three months from receipt of a certified copy of this order. 8. Parties are directed to appear before the Director Land Records-cum-Director Consolidation, Punjab, Jalandhar, on 12.09.2012. ---------0.B.S.0------------