IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 21437 of 2010 Date of Decision: December 01, 2010 Ram Singh ...... Petitioner Versus Commissioner and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. R.K.Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 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. This petition has been filed challenging the order under the Haryana Public Premises & Land (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 as well as the appellate order dismissing the appeal. Though many contentions had been raised in the petition, to my mind, the primary determinant of this case is the admitted fact that the petitioner was given 15 opportunities to lead his evidence before the Estate Officer but no evidence was led by him. Not only that the petitioner filed an appeal after more than a period of one year but neither the petitioner nor his counsel bothered to appear before the appellate authority as well. It was for these authorities to determine the primary question of fact relating to the alleged ownership of the petitioner over the land in dispute and to determine the question of law regarding the right of respondent No.3-Market Committee to claim the eviction of the petitioner. In these circumstances the arguments now sought to be raised cannot be looked into by this Court. The writ petition is dismissed. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE December 01 , 2010 sunita