C.W.P No. 1684 of 1992 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 1684 of 1992 (O&M) Date of decision : April 26, 2011 Jagan Nath(dead) through L.Rs ...... Petitioner v. Director Rural Development and Panchayat Punjab & Ors. ...... Respondents *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Dharam Pal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gazi Mohd. DAG Punjab *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 16.6.1989 (Annexure P-6) and 17.7.1991 (Annexure P-8) whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act was dismissed. Neither any one has entered appearance on behalf of respondent No.3-Gram Panchayat nor any written statement has been filed on its behalf. The petitioner had filed the application claiming that land C.W.P No. 1684 of 1992 (O&M) ::2:: measuring 12 kanals 3 marla was in his possession as ownership from the time of his ancestors having been allotted to them during consolidation in lieu of pre consolidation holding and was not more than their share in the shamlat. During evidence, the petitioner had produced Halqa Patwari who had also deposed to this effect. However, the learned Collector dismissed the application only on the ground that consolidation record had not been produced. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, consolidation record had not been produced intentionally since the Halqa Patwari had corroborated the claim of the petitioner. I find from the impugned orders that the statement of the Halqa Patwari who has been referred to in the order of the Collector has not at all been considered. In my opinion, it would be in the interest of justice if the matter is remitted to the concerned authority for a fresh decision after considering the statement of the Halqa Patwari. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Development) Ropar, exercising the powers of the Collector under the said Act, for a fresh decision, in accordance with law after considering the entire evidence. The petitioner through his counsel is directed to appear before the aforesaid authority on 2.6.2011. The competent authority shall issue notice to respondent No.3-Gram Panchayat before deciding the case. No costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) April 26, 2011. JUDGE `kk' C.W.P No. 1684 of 1992 (O&M) ::3::