C.W.P. No.7171 of 1988 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.7171 of 1988 (O&M) Date of Decision:29.11.2010. Sh. Hardev Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus The Gram Panchayat, Ballpur and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate, for the petitioners. None for respondent No.1. Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl. A.G. Punjab, for respondents No. 2 – State. NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL) Challenge is to the order dated August 16th, 1988 (Annexure P/7), passed by Collector, Patiala (Deputy Director, Panchayats). For facilitation, the order is reproduced as under:- “ Counsel for both the parties have been heard. The application of the respondents dated 12.7.1988 is dismissed on the ground that the Gram Panchayat is competent to move an application u/s 11. For evidence of the petitioner to come up on 29.8.1988.” 2. By the impugned order, application filed by the petitioners to dismiss the application of Gram Panchayat under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) was dismissed and parties were directed to lead evidence. 3. The solitary point urged before the Deputy Director, Panchayats was that Gram Panchayat was not competent to move application under Section 11 of the Act. C.W.P. No.7171 of 1988 2 .. 4. Section 11 of the Act provides that any person or a Panchayat claiming right, title or interest in any land vested or deemed to have been vested in a Panchayat under this Act or claiming that any land has not so vested in a Panchayat, may submit to the Collector a statement of his claim in writing , meaning thereby, that the Gram Panchayat, Ballpur was competent to file the application under Section 11 of the Act. Otherwise too, the parties were allowed to lead evidence in support of their case. 5. In view of this, no illegality or irregularity is discernible in the impugned order (Annexure P/7). 6. Dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 29.11.2010. som