C.R. No.1902 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. C.R. No.1902 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.07.2010 Randhir Singh ....Petitioner Versus Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana and another ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashok Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondents. ... Alok Singh, J. (Oral). Present petition is filed invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging order dated 26.7.2007 passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana. Brief facts of the present case are that a public interest litigation i.e. CWP No.4886 of 2003 was filed before this Court making grievance about the encroachment over public land. Various orders were passed in the aforesaid writ petition for the removal of encroachment from the C.R. No.1902 of 2008 2 public/municipal/State land. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in CWP No.4886 of 2003, a notice dated 27.4.2005 was issued to the petitioner herein calling upon the petitioner to vacate the property vested in the Municipal Corporation within three days. In the event the petitioner fails to vacate the property, the Corporation would take possession of the land at its own level. Petitioner preferred writ petition before this Court challenging the notice dated 27.4.2005 by filing CWP No.1173 of 2006. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.5.2006 directed the Commissioner to consider the case of the petitioner on merits and take the decision with regard to the ownership of the property within four months. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 23.5.2006, afforded an opportunity to the petitioner to place his case before him and after hearing the petitioner at length, passed the impugned order dated 26.7.2007. The Commissioner in the order impugned has held that the land in question is recorded as municipal land in the immovable property register duly maintained by the Municipal Corporation. It was also observed by the Commissioner in the impugned order that earlier the case was initiated against the petitioner under the Punjab Public Premises Act and in that matter, the petitioner was directed to be evicted from the public premises. However, in appeal, the Commissioner has reversed the order of eviction of the petitioner on technical grounds that for initiation of proceedings under the Public Premises Act, the Corporation ought to have passed a resolution which was not passed. However on merits, order of the Collector that the property is public property and the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation thereof has not been touched at all. C.R. No.1902 of 2008 3 Sole case of the petitioner was that the petitioner is owner of the property pursuant to the judgement and decree dated 3.5.1972 passed by the competent Court. However, copy of the judgement and decree is neither placed before the Commissioner nor learned senior counsel is able to show a copy of the same to this Court and stated at Bar that the copy of the judgement and decree is not available with him. It is also clear from the order impugned that notice dated 27.4.2005 was issued against the petitioner invoking Section 246A of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976. In the absence of the certified copy of the alleged judgement and decree dated 3.5.1972, it would not be possible for this Court to accept the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has become owner of the land in dispute pursuant to the judgement and decree dated 3.5.1972. Property is duly recorded as municipal property in the immovable property register maintained by the Municipal Corporation, hence presumption of Section 114 is also in favour of the respondents. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the view taken by the Commissioner. Petition is devoid of merit and hence is dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge 02.07.2010 sk.