Civil Revision No. 1316 of 2008 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 1316 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 6.1.2009 Lal Singh and others ..... Petitioners vs Gram Panchayat of Village Behbal Khurd ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. G. S. Brar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate, for the respondent. Rajesh Bindal J. At the time of issuing notice of motion, this court recorded the contention of the petitioners in the following terms:- “Challenge in this petition is to orders dated 28.1.2008 and 6.2.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridkot and the Additional District Judge, Faridkot respectively, declining to grant an ad interim injunction to the petitioner. As regards the plea for grant of an injunction to restrain the respondent from demolishing/ dismantling the passage/Raasta, as the petitioner is alleged to have encroached upon the public path and proceedings are stated to be pending under the Public Premises Act, the learned courts below rightly declined the prayer for injunction. However, with regard to the second prayer that the respondents should not encroach upon 64 kanals and 13 marlas of land belonging to the petitioner, the impugned orders have not expressed any opinion in respect thereof.” Learned counsel for the respondent submits that as far as second prayer of the petitioners is concerned, which is regarding protection Civil Revision No. 1316 of 2008 (2) of possession of 64 kanals and 13 marlas of land, the Gram Panchayat will not interfere into the possession of the petitioners. However, the petitioners shall not encroached upon the passage/Raasta as is mentioned in para 2 of order dated 3.3.2008. The petitioners are satisfied with this stand of the respondent. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioners shall not be disturbed from their possession on 64 kanals and 13 marlas of land. If the petitioners are in possession of any portion of passage/Raasta, as is mentioned in para 2 of order dated 3.3.2008, the same shall be vacated by them. 6.1.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge