IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11687 of 1988. Date of Decision : 19.11.2010. Har Parshad ......Petitioner Versus Social Education and Panchayat Officer, Hodel & others ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. B.R. Rana, Advocate for Mr. R.S. Sihota, Sr. Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Saini, Sr. DAG Haryana, for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) Challenge is to the order dated July 19th, 1988 passed by District Collector, Faridabad upholding the order dated April 21st, 1988 of Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Palwal whereby application filed by the Social Education and Panchayat Officer, Hodel, District Faridabad under Section 7(2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act against Har Parshad-petitioner was accepted directing the Block Development and Panchayat Officer to take possession of passage from the petitioner. 2. Shri P.R. Rao, I.A.S., Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Palwal on the asking of the parties, visited the spot and found that the disputed land adjoins the G.T. Road and the petitioner had put some stones to stop the passage which was shown in red colour in the map and the said land was passage for the common use of the public. The plea put forth by the petitioner was that as per the revenue record, he was owner in possession of the passage but on being asked by the Assistant Collector, he could not produce any evidence to prove the same. It was also pointed out by the Assistant Collector that the passage was reserved for the common purposes of Civil Writ Petition No.11687 of 1988. (2) the village. Petitioner in order to prove his ownership and possession relied upon the compromise deed entered between him and the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat but the same was not accepted by the Assistant Collector and rightly so because the Sarpanch had no authority to compromise with regard to land reserved for common purposes. Since petitioner failed to prove his ownership over the passage and it vests in the Gram Panchayat so, the orders under challenge do not warrant any interference. 3. In view of this, writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 19.11.2010. SN