IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.2808 of 1999 Date of Decision: April 28, 2011 Gram Panchayat, Killabharian, Tehsil & District, Sangrur .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Additional Director, Consolidation, Punjab & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. S.S. Salar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Attariwala, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. Arun Jindal, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2, 5 and 7. Mr. A.P. Kaushal, Advocate, for respondent Nos.3, 4 and 6. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. Learned counsel for the parties request that in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, main petition be taken up for final hearing. 2. Ordered accordingly. 3. Main case is taken up for hearing today itself. 4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2, 5 and 7 contends CWP No.2808 of 1999 [2] that without doubt, Gram Panchayat Killabharian, Tehsil & District Sangrur (petitioner) had filed Civil Writ Petition No.12899 of 1995 in which respondent Nos.4 to 7 (private respondents) were also impleaded. The said writ petition was also in challenge to Order dated 10.5.1995 (Annexure P-1 herein) and was dismissed vide Order dated 31.8.1995. 5. Learned counsel contends that Gram Panchayat intentionally filed the earlier writ so as to take the stamp of this Court because its Sarpanch, Darshan Singh, was a beneficiary. The case was intentionally not pleaded in context of true and correct facts to favour the then Sarpanch. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that let this petition be dismissed as withdrawn. Gram Panchayat would bring out all the facts and take recourse to alternate remedy. 7. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. (AJAI LAMBA) April 28, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?