LPA No. 338 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No.338 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision 6 .5.2009 Dharam Singh etc. .Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA Present: Mr. N.D.Achint,Advocate for the appellants 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgement dated 26.2.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing Civil Writ Petition No. 7707 of 2007. The learned Single Judge has categorically held that the order which was passed by the Commissioner, respondent no.2 was challenged in the writ petition was an order of remand directing the Assistant Collector Ist Grade to redecide the issue on merits by considering the record of consolidation and after conducting spot inspection. The Commissioner has further observed that decision be taken afresh and the passage should be got cleared after demarcating the plot in the abadi .The contention of the counsel for the appellants that no discretion is left with the Assistant Collector to decide the issue on merits once he had issued directions that passage should be got cleared after demarcation of the plot in the abadi area. However, the learned Single Judge has held that the aforesaid decision has been taken by the LPA No. 338 of 2009(O&M) 2 Commissioner by placing reliance on documents like Naksha Musabi, Bandobasat abadi Deh 1939-40 where existence of common passage in the abadi was shown. A similar position was reflected in the demarcation report dated 14.6.1994 showing encroachment of the land by the appellants and as per the report of the Naib Tehsildar the appellants were found in illegal possession. The Commissioner as well as the learned Single Judge also noticed that the Assistant Collector Ist Grade or the appellate Court did not examine the demarcation report and the report of the Presiding Officer. It was in the aforesaid background that the Commissioner was justified in passing the order dated 22.8.2006 (P.6). The learned Single Judge has permitted the petitioners to agitate whatever arguments are available to them before Assistant Collector Ist Grade. Accordingly, he dismissed the petition. Feeling aggrieved they have challenged the aforesaid order. Having heard learned counsel at a considerable length we find that no ground for interference is made out especially when the writ petition is directed against the remand order and the appellants have been permitted to raise all the points before the authority concerned. Once the documentary evidence on record has not been considered by the authorities concerned, remanding the matter to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade is not unwarranted and infact is fully justified. We find no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (H.S. Bhalla ) 6.5.2009 Judge okg