LPA No. 370 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No. 370 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.03.2010 Kalawati Devi and others ....Appellants. Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Gurnam Singh, Advocate for the appellant. ... Alok Singh, J. 1. Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 13.2.2009 passed by learned Single Judge whereby dismissing CWP No.9467 of 2007. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that in a proceeding under the provisions of the Punjab Public Premises Act, the petitioners were directed to be evicted by the Collector vide order dated 17.10.2006, which was duly confirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 21.5.2007. As per the appellants, they are not in unauthorised possession of the property in dispute. According to the appellants - petitioners, 300 acres of land in LPA No. 370 of 2010 2 village Pilli Madauri was kept reserved for use of common purpose; this area was taken by imposing pro-rata cut on the holdings of the proprietors; 43 Kanals 6 Marlas of land was given to one Patt Ram by the proprietors, who is father-in-law of petitioner No.1; Patt Ram continued to pay Batai till 1964-65; thereafter, proprietors of the village gave the land for agriculture purpose. Hence, the Gram Panchayat has no right and title over the land even if the petitioners are in unauthorized occupation of the land. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. The petitioners are not claiming any title over the property in dispute, rather they are claiming their title by way of adverse possession since the Rabi 1965. Undisputedly, the Gram Panchayat had taken possession of the land in March, 2007 and had leased out the land to one Chhotu Ram son of Matu Ram. The land had subsequently been auctioned in an open auction to Momu son of Chuni Lal on 2.5.2007. In view of these undisputed facts, now the appellants cannot be said to be in possession of the property in dispute. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants could not point out any illegality in the order passed by the Collector, the appellate authority or learned Single Judge, except to state that the appellants have matured title by way of adverse possession. 6. We do not find any force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. Even if at one place the appellants are claiming that proprietors of the village gave the land for agriculture purpose yet at other place, they are claiming their title by way of adverse possession. But facts remain that the appellants are not in possession of the LPA No. 370 of 2010 3 land in dispute and have been evicted. 7. In view of the above, no interference is called for. Appeal is dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge 16.03.2010 sk.