JUDGMENT Mr. Surya Kant, J.: (Oral) - This order shall dispose of CWP No.2014 of 1987 & RSA No.1720 of 1988 as the points in issue are common in these cases. For brevity, the facts are being taken from CWP No.2014 of 1987. 2. The petitioner impugns the order dated 28.01.1987 (Annexure P3) passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation under Section 42 of The East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. The above-stated order was passed on a petition filed by respondent No.2 seeking re-alignment of the passage in such a manner that the existing passage does not bifurcate his landholding. The Additional Director vide the impugned order held that path No.191, namely, the existing sanctioned path had bifurcated the block of land of respondent No.2. He further held that the petitioner had already got his land-holding connected with another main path hence no second path was required by him. It was thus concluded that path No.191 was totally unnecessary and need to be cancelled. 3. The aggrieved petitioners, namely, the respondents before Additional Director have approached this Court. They were granted ad interim stay by this Court vide order dated 13.04.1987 which is still operative. 4. With a view to understand the location of path No.191 as well as the path which goes upto the land-holding of writ petitioners, the site plan (Annexure P1) was directed to be produced depicting the existing passages in different colours as also the alternative passage which respondent No.2 might agree to provide to the petitioners. 5. In deference thereto, Mr. Deepak Thapar, counsel for the second respondent has handed over a copy of the aks shajra which is taken on record. 6. It is not in dispute that the passage C, D & E is one of the main passage and it touches killa No.271 & 270 which are now owned by the petitioners as the previous owner Smt. Shyamo has died and her entire estate has been inherited by the petitioners. The landholding of Smt. Shyamo (now owned by the petitioners) abuts the land owned by predecessor-in-interest i.e. the father of the petitioners shown within blue lines. 7. The landholding of Smt. Shyamo (now owned by the petitioners) abuts the land owned by predecessor-in-interest i.e. the father of the petitioners shown within blue lines. 7. It may also be mentioned here that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and Smt. Shyamo were co-sharers and thus even before the death of Smt. Shyamo, the finding returned by the Additional Director, Consolidation that there existed a main passage upto the land of petitioners was factually correct. As on date also, the said passage is indeed in existence. 8. As regards the second passage sought by petitioners i.e. from C to B and B to A, there is no denial to the fact that respondent No.2 is owner of khasra No.189, 190, 192, 193, 194 & 207. The passage sought by the petitioners from B to A bifurcates the landholdings of respondent No.2 into two parts i.e. killa No.189 and 190 would remain on left hand side while the other killa Nos. on the right hand side. 9. The finding of fact given by the Additional Director that the passage in Killa No.191 is bifurcating the land of respondent No.2 is also thus factually correct. 10. It may be useful to state at this stage that the legislative object of 1948 Act is to prevent fragmentation of land-holdings. The action of the authorities under the Act, thus, must be for consolidating the land-holdings and not bifurcating them. 11. Be that as it may, the second respondent has still offered the passage to the petitioners which would be least adversarial to the interest of respondent No.2. The second respondent has no objection if the passage follows the boundary of killa No.193 & 194 and goes upto half of killa No.204 and then it runs on the boundary of killa Nos.193 & 207 owned by respondent No.2 and straight enters into killa No.208 owned by petitioners. 12. The above-stated offer is not acceptable to the petitioners. We are informed that their land has been taken by a brick-kiln owner who wants the passage as per his own convenience. Land of respondent No.2 cannot be bifurcated for plying the trucks or tractors of a brick-kiln owner. 13. Dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————