C.R No.466 of 2008 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : April 21, 2010 1. C.R No.466 of 2008 (O&M) Raghubir Singh vs Malla Ram and another, 2. C.R No.465 of 2008 (O&M) Darshan Singh vs Malla Ram and another, *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Vikrant Oberoi, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. J.S.Gill, Advocate for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This order shall dispose of C.R Nos.465 and 466 of 2008, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. For the sake of convenience, facts are being extracted from CR No.466 of 2008. This revision petition has been filed against concurrent orders of the Courts below rejecting the temporary injunction application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents (who were at that time Sarpanch and Panch of the Gram Panchayat) from interfering in his possession over quarter No.27 C.R No.466 of 2008 (O&M) ::2:: which had been constructed by the State of Punjab/Panchayati Raj Department for allotment to land-less persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. As per the petitioner, the said quarter had been allotted to one Chameli. After she died, the petitioner moved an application for allotment of the said quarter to him and the respondents had proved the allotment and since then he was in possession of the said quarter. It was further pleaded that subsequently, the respondents tried to dis-possess the petitioner and, therefore, he had to file the instant suit. The case of the respondents was that neither had they allotted the quarter to the petitioner nor in fact did they have any authority to do so and the allotment could have been made only by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer. It was further pleaded that in fact, the petitioner was not in possession of the said quarter. The Courts below did not dis-believe the possession of the petitioner but rejected the application for temporary injunction on the other grounds mentioned above. In my opinion, even though the petitioner should have sued the State of Punjab since, admittedly, the quarters were constructed by the State of Punjab yet in any case, he was entitled to protect his possession from the respondents. In the circumstances, the State of Punjab through the Collector Muktsar and the Gram Panchayat of village Madhir, Tehsil Gidderbaha, District Muktsar would be necessary parties. Further, counsel for the respondents has informed me that the existing respondents are no more elected representatives of the Village Panchayat. Resultantly, it would be in the interest of justice if the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action after impleading C.R No.466 of 2008 (O&M) ::3:: necessary and proper parties. Ordered accordingly. With these observations, the present petitions are disposed of. As the main petitions have since been disposed of, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) April 21, 2010. JUDGE `kk'