IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 18018 of 2011 Date of Decision: September 23, 2011 Kashmir Singh ….Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: Mr. P.S. Khurana, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court challenging order dated 08.03.2011 passed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur (Annexure P/7), as well as, order dated 03.03.2010 passed by the Chief Sales Commissioner-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur (Annexure P/5), thereby setting aside order dated 22.01.1985 approving the allotment/transfer in favour of the petitioner by the Sales Commissioner and CWP No. 18018 of 2011 remanding the matter to the Sales Commissioner to hear it afresh and to decide it afresh. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that admittedly transfer order was made in favour of the petitioner on 17.12.1980 and was approved by the Sales Commissioner vide order dated 22.01.1985. He further submits that petitioner has filed one suit i.e. Case No. 84- 1/20.04.2001 in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Zira, Kashmir Singh versus Jasmer Singh and Gurmej Singh, for permanent prohibitory injunction saying petitioner is in possession of the property in question pursuant to the transfer order dated 17.12.1980 and its approval dated 22.01.1985. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein were the defendants and they have hotly contested the suit. However, learned Civil Judge having found that transfer was made in favour of the petitioner on 17.12.1980, which was duly approved on 22.01.1985 has recorded possession of the plaintiff-petitioner over the suit land and has decreed the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants-respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein not to make interference in the possession of the plaintiff-petitioner. Learned counsel further states that judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) dated 01.04.2004 was challenged by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in Civil Appeal in the Court of 2 CWP No. 18018 of 2011 learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur which too was dismissed on 18.12.2004. Learned counsel has further argued that the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) as confirmed by learned Additional District Judge has attained finality. Now, it is not open to the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, as well as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to say that petitioner is not in possession. Learned counsel further states that once Civil Court has recorded possession of the petitioner over the suit land, therefore, matter was unnecessarily remanded to the Sales Commissioner to find out the possession. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that petitioner has no objection to appear before the Sales Commissioner pursuant to the impugned remand order, however, a positive direction be issued to Sales Commissioner-cum-Collector to the effect that Sales Commissioner-cum-Collector shall record definite finding on the issue of effect of Civil Court’s judgment and decree and on the point as to whether in view of judgment and decree claim of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 is hopelessly time barred? And as to whether respondent Nos. 4 and 5 can be permitted to challenge the transfer and its approval on the face of Civil Court’s judgment and decree. I find force in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3 CWP No. 18018 of 2011 Present petition is disposed of with direction to the Sales Commissioner-cum-Collector shall record specific finding on the legal effect of Civil Court’s judgment and decree. He shall also record definite finding on the question as to whether respondents’ claim in view of Civil Court’s judgment is time barred and can be permitted to be raised once again after the judgment of Civil Court. Entire exercise shall be completed by the Sales Commissioner within 60 days from the date certified copy of this order is placed before him. September 23, 2011 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 4