IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 11329 of 2009 Date of Decision: 18.08.2011 Inderjit Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus Director, Rural Development & Panchayat, Punjab and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. R.S.Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. **** SURYA KANT .J.(Oral) Petitioners seek quashing of an eviction order dated 11.09.2006 passed by the Collector-cum-District Development & Panchayat Officer, Nawanshahar (Annexure P-3) which has been further upheld in appeal by respondent No.1 i.e. Director, Rural Development & Panchayat-cum-Commissioner, Punjab vide order dated 20.02.2009 (Annexure P-4). The Collector as well as the Appellate Authority have concurrently held that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, namely, Harbhajan Singh was in unauthorized possession of the gram panchayat land i.e. shamlat land. CWP No. 11329 of 2009 [2] The plea taken on behalf of the petitioners is very well discernible from the order dated 13.01.2011 passed by this Court which reads as follow:- “ The short contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that they are the legal representatives of Harbhajan Singh and were required to be heard before any order of ejectment under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 was passed by the authorities under the said Act. Learned counsel for the respondent-Gram Panchayat contends that perusal of order Annexure P-3 would show that L.Rs. of Harbhajan Singh were impleaded. Harbhajan Singh died on 29,.9.2005 whereas the Collector gave the decision on 11.9.2006 i.e. approximately after one year. The arguments were addressed on behalf of the petitioners who were respondents before the authority and, therefore, in the summary proceedings, no manifest injustice has been caused to the petitioners. There has been no violation of principles of natural justice. It has also been pointed out that even in equity, the petitioners have no claim in so much as Harbhajan Singh had already produced his evidence. For criminal conduct of Harbhajan Singh, FIR No. 28 dated 28.5.2002 had been registered. Requisition record to see the date on which the petitioners joined proceedings and to see whether they had ample opportunity to contest the case after the death of Harbhajan Singh. Adjourned to 16.03.2011. Copy of the order be given under the signatures of the Court Reader. District Development & Panchayat Officer-cum- Collector, Nawashahar is directed to send the record along with an officer/official who is in the know of the facts of the case.” Pursuant thereto, the District Development & Panchayat Officer-cum-Collector, Nawanshahar is present today and has produced the original record revealing that immediate after the death CWP No. 11329 of 2009 [3] of Harbhajan Singh on 26.09.2005, his legal heirs, namely, the present petitioners, moved an application on 03.11.2005 for their impleadment and it was much thereafter that the eviction order was passed by the Collector on 11.09.2006, obviously after giving an opportunity of hearing to them. The record further reveals that Harbhajan Singh had already appeared as a witness in support of his defence on 14.06.2005 and he was further cross-examined on 13.09.2005. The zimini orders available in the file are duly signed by the Collector. It reveals that after recording his examination-in-chief the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had also sought for an opportunity to produce some documents but later on the same were not produced. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that no sufficient opportunity was given to the deceased Harbhajan Singh to defend himself in the summary proceedings. The plea taken by the petitioners before this Court is thus contrary to the record. No case to interfere in the impugned orders is made out. Dismissed. (SURYA KANT) 18.08.2011 JUDGE 'ravinder'