In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … L.P.A.No.1858 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 3.10.2011 Gurnam Singh ..Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Narain Raina Present: Mr. Avtar Singh, Advocate for Mr. Karanbir Singh Kahlon, Advocate for the Appellant. .. 1. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Rajiv Narain Raina,J. C.M.No.4976 of 2011 C.M. is allowed subject to all just exceptions. C.M.No.4975 of 2011 For the reasons mentioned in the application,which is supported by an affidavit, delay of 462 days in filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. L.P.A.No.1858 of 2011 This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 26.7.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No.13095 of 2011. The order reads as follows:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to move a representation before the appropriate authorities to initiate action under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 for eviction of the unauthorized occupants over the panchayat land. Dismissed as withdrawn with aforesaid liberty.” The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13.6.2011 (P-12) passed by the first respondent reinstating the fifth respondent as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Paprali, Block Morinda, District Ropar. Against this order, an alternative remedy was available. That was the reason why the writ petition was withdrawn by the then learned counsel for the petitioner with liberty to pursue his regular remedy. It is surprising that this appeal has been filed to challenge the order passed by the learned Single Judge by changing counsel and that too without pleading anything further as to the circumstances obtaining at the hearing of the petition or that Section 7 is inapplicable. Notwithstanding that such prayer cannot be entertained after withdrawal of the matter to pursue statutory remedy. No cause of action survives in this Court and the petitioner-appellant is left to pursue his remedy in terms of the order. In fact, the order dated 26.7.2011 cannot be taken to be an impugned order at all. The appeal is consequently misconceived and misdirected and is dismissed in limine with costs assessed as `5000/- for wasting the time of the Court. Costs be deposited before the Punjab State Legal Services Authority, Chandigarh and the appellant is directed to place before the Registrar General of this Court proof of payment of the same within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (M.M.KUMAR) (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE October 3,2011 nk