P L D 1959 W (PLP)

S. 30 read with Sch. 2--‑Existing roads only or roads marked out already at time of grant of proprietary rights can be reserved for public use‑--No new path can be sanctioned. This is a revision petition against an order of the Commis sioner, Bahawalpur Division, dated 24‑9‑56 upholding the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Bahawalpur, sanctioning new road through the land of Abdur Rashid, petitioner, in Chak No. 9/B. C., Tahsil and District Bahawalpur. I have heard the petitioner with Mr. Farzand Ali, Advocate and the respondent in person. The respondent, who is not a land‑owner in this Chak but is the owner of an Ihata, applied to the revenue authorities for sanctioning a direct path from the village to the railway station, a distance of some four acres. The path proposed by the Tahsildar passes through the land of the petitioner. The path, proposed by the Tahsildar, was sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner and a revision petition, filed by the petitioner against that order, was dismissed by the Commissioner, who also inspected the site. At the request of the parties I also visited the site this morn ing. While it is true that the path sanctioned is somewhat shorter than the path, already being used by the villagers (the difference according, to the Commissioner's order is only of about sixty karams‑old path being about 363 karams while the new path is 304 karams) almost the entire village body opposes the sanction of the new path on the ground that the path already being used is more suitable for them and their womenfolk, who go to their fields, situated on the other side of the main metalled road. The respondent's contention that the existing path is sandy and unsuitable for vehicular traffic was found by me to be without much substance as my car was easily driven along this path and the surface was not found the be unduly sandy or unsuitable. Even if one has to go to the railway station from the village the existing path can be used without too much inconvenience. In any case the daily need of the villagers is more to have a convenient path going to their fields rather than to the railway station. It was asserted by the villagers that as a matter of fact the respondent had already entered into a transaction with another person selling his Ihata to him. Some documentary proof to this effect was also produced. This was not entirely denied by the respondent, who said that he proposed to sell his Ihata owing to the inconvenience which he was experiencing in reaching the main metalled road or the railway station. Apart from the objections raised by the petitioner and the villagers I observe that the petitioner has already acquired pro prietary rights in his holding and according to section 30 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, read with conditions, contained in schedule 2, (referred to in section 30) Government can reserve a right of the public only to use the existing thorough A fares traversing the lands of the petitioner or any line of roads, which though not yet made have been marked out upon the ground. Already a wide metalled road passes through the lands of the petitioner and there are also two water‑courses passing through his holding. It seems to me that it would not only be unfair to the petitioner to sanction another path through his holding, which would take away another 2 Kanals of his land but that under the conditions mentioned already Government would not be within its rights to sanction a new path through his lands as it was not marked out upon the ground at the time when the proprietary rights were acquired by the petitioner. Thus I find neither any legal nor equitable grounds for sanction ing a new path through the lands of the petitioner. In these circumstances I set aside the orders passed by the Commissioner and accept the petition. A. H. Petition accepted.