CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19370 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 09, 2009 Hawa Singh and others .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. When the writ petition came up for motion hearing on 14.11.2008, the same was adjourned sine-die to enable the counsel for the petitioners to contradict the factual position contained in Paragraph 4 of the impugned order dated 17.12.2004 (Annexure P-2) by placing any further material on record. The factual position, as was noticed by Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, is that mutation of the land in dispute was sanctioned in favour of Gram Panchayat in the year 1972. Prior to that in the column of ownership, the land was shown to be in the ownership of shamlat thola and in the column of cultivation it was entered as Makbooja Malkan. The land was described as banjar-kadim and gair mumkin shor. It was CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19370 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: also observed that no documentary evidence has been adduced by the petitioners to prove that the land in dispute had not been used for common purpose of the village by any community or part of it. Even as per the oral evidence, the land in dispute is shown to have been used as grazing ground for animals and for fuel wood. The statement of the petitioners that the land was used only by the proprietor was not found enough or sufficient. As a matter of fact, the mutation sanctioned in favour of Gram Panchayat had not been challenged by any of the proprietor. From the record available, it was also noticed that there is a garmumkin johar (pond) on some part of the land and the Gram Panchayat has been leasing out some land. To rebut this factual aspect, the petitioners have placed on record, Annexures P-9 to P- 12, which have been taken on record by a separate order, pursuant to a miscellaneous application filed by the petitioners. Annexure P-9 is a statement of Attar Singh, Sarpanch. He clearly mentioned in his statement that the land in dispute is a shamlat deh and is banjar and shor from the very beginning. The proprietors and non-proprietors of the village are using the same for grazing the cattle and taking wood for fuel purposes. This evidence, thus, would not help the cause of the petitioners and is not in any contradiction to the factual finding returned by the Commissioner. Annexure P-10 is an evidence of Ramesh Kumar, who has also confirmed that this land is in the ownership of Gram Panchayat. Nothing much can be made out from the cross-examination, where the witness may have expressed his ignorance about certain aspects being illiterate. Similar is the state of evidence of Bhim Singh (Annexure P-11). He has also confirmed that CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19370 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: the land belongs to Gram Panchayat. Annexure P-12 is the copy of list of owners of Thola Malkaan as per the jamabandi for the year 1996-97. This document alone would not be enough to rebut/contradict the voluminous record and the oral evidence available on record to show the ownership of the land being that of the Gram Panchayat. It will not be within the purview of the writ court to re-appreciate the documents to come to any different conclusion on facts. Otherwise, the petitioners could not indicate any ground which may call for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. March 09 ,2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE