IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 2639-C of 2007 and RSA No. 952 of 2007 Date of Decision: September 16, 2009 Sardul Singh and others ...... Appellants Versus Mnicipal Committee Kalanwali and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.N.D.Achint, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Talvinder Singh, Advocate for the respondents. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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. CM No. 2639-C of 2007 For the reasons recorded in the application, the delay f 182 days in refiling the present appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed RSA No. 952 of 2007 This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondents and thereby holding that earlier decree dated 9.1.90 obtained by the appellants against the Gram Panchayat Kalawali was illegal since on the date when the suit was filed the land in dispute had been transferred by the Municipal Committee. The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether the decree for possession being not granted on account of subsisting occupancy right,the decree for declaration could have been passed le gally by the trial court? ii)Whether the decree and judgment rendered by the learned trial court is liable to be reversed in view of the admitted fact of the existence of notification dated 14.11.2003? iii)Whether the second suit filed by some of the appellants and it withdrawal legalised the right of the plaintiff and Municipal Committee as it was never in existence at the time of passing of the decree dated 24.11.20094? The main question in my opinion is as follows:- “whether on the date when the previous suit was filed by the appellant the owner of land in dispute was the Gram Panchayat or the Municipal Committee?” The only argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that in the year 2003 the land was again transferred back to the Gram Panchayat. However, he is not in a position to deny that on the date when he filed the earlier suit the ownership of the land in dispute vested in the Municipal Committee and not the Gram Panchayat. This primary question having been held against the appellant the proposed question do not arise and consequently this appeal is dismissed. No costs. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE September , 2009 sunita