IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1916 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.11. 2008 Sham Lal and others ...... Appellants Versus Banarsi Dass ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari 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? Present: Mr.Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the appellants. **** Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below holding that the plaintiff had succeeded in his plea for a decree for possession against the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the appellants had become owners in view of Section 4 of the Punjab Village Common Land Regulation Act, 1961 but in my opinion the said assertion has been rightly negatived by the learned lower Appellate Court by holding as follows:- “In the Jamabandi Ex.P1 the land in dispute is recorded in the name of respondent/plaintiff as owner of the property and property has been shown as gair mumkin. RSA No. 1916 of 2007 -2- This would not mean that it is an abadi within the meaning of Sham-lat and is commonly known by expression Lal Lakir. It is also not the part of Sham-lat deh wherein non-proprietor have been settled.” The other plea taken by learned counsel for the appellants is that the appellants are in adverse possession to the plaintiff. However, learned counsel for the appellants was not able to point out the ingredients of adverse possession having been proved. In the circumstances I hold that the questions of law proposed do not arise in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE November 03, 2008 sunita