C.R. No. 7274 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 7274 of 2010 Date of Decision: 19.9.2011 Amar Singh ....Petitioner. Versus Dhan Singh and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.R. Hooda, Advocate for the respondents. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. By way of instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 6.10.2010 (Annexure P-6) passed by the trial court whereby the objections filed by the petitioner against the report of the Local Commissioner appointed vide order dated 19.4.2010 were dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court vide order dated 22.2.2011 had directed the Sub Divisional Officer, Ganaur to visit the spot and examine if any encroachment existed on the site in question. In compliance with the aforesaid order, the report of spot inspection made by Shri Subhash Sheoran, Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Ganaur has been filed in the Court. In para 3 of the report, it has been stated that the respondents, i.e. Dhan Singh etc. are C.R. No. 7274 of 2010 -2- still in possession over the suit land. Para 3 thereof reads as under:- “3. That on the disputed site, a latrine pitch is dig up on which there is no boundary wall and no roof. The bricks were collected and put up in the form of heap (chatta), an old BEEM (cement pillar) which is lying on the spot and there is a tin shed for cattles of which one wall is about 4 ft. in length and 6 ft. in height is constructed. The said wall has been constructed is 4+2 ft. in the Panchayat Land. The photographs of the disputed site were also taken on the spot. The suit land comprised in Rect.& Killa No. 27//15/1/25min. Hence, the respondents i.e. Dhan Singh are still in possession over the suit land. The attendant sheet is Annexure A-1/T, Najri site plan is Annexure A-2/T and the photographs A to D are Annexure A-3, which are the part of this report. Hence the report is submitted for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.” 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the report of the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Ganaur is against the record and there is no violation of judgment and decree passed by the trial court as possession is not of the respondents. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in view of the subsequent development in the form of report of the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Ganaur and the fact that the veracity of the same is being disputed by the respondents, it is considered appropriate that the C.R. No. 7274 of 2010 -3- executing court decides the controversy afresh. 6. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 6.10.2010 passed by the trial court is set aside. The matter is remanded to the executing court to decide afresh in accordance with law after affording proper opportunity to the parties to substantiate their respective version. September 19, 2011 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE