IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 16992 of 2011 Date of Decision: 12.09.2011 Sukhdev Singh and another ..Petitioners Versus The Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Barnala and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: Mr. L.N.Verma, Advocate, for the petitioners. 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? ALOK SINGH J. (ORAL) Learned counsel for the petitioners, in view of judgment passed by this Court in the case of Shamsher Singh Vs. Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala (CWP No. 16338 of 2011 decided on September 2nd, 2011), states that impugned orders passed in summary proceedings of mutation neither decide nor could decide question of possession and title; mutation can neither confer nor extinguish title of either of the party appearing before the Revenue officers. He has rightly stated that any observation/finding or decision in summary proceedings of mutation, in the impugned orders, shall neither be res judicata nor shall prejudice the civil suit to be filed by the petitioner to establish the title and possession, therefore, the petitioners may be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file the civil suit. CWP No. 16992 of 2011 -2- .. Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. It is made clear that if civil suit is filed by the petitioners, same shall be decided at its own merit without being prejudiced from any observation/finding or decision in the impugned orders passed in mutation proceedings and shall not act as res judicata in civil suit to be filed by the petitioner. (ALOK SINGH) JUDGE 12.09.2011 som