COCP No. 2999 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No. 2999 of 2011 Date of Decision: 14.12.2011 Kushal Pal Chauhan ....Petitioner. Versus Shri R.K. Chandana and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Mahavir Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to order dated 13.3.2003 (Annexure P-3) passed in CWP No. 6450 of 1999 which was disposed of in terms of CWP No. 5877 of 1992, wherein, inter alia, the following direction had been issued:- “iii) the lands which have been contributed by the proprietors on the basis of pro-rata cut on their holdings imposed during the consolidation proceedings and which have not been earmarked for any common purpose in the consolidation scheme prepared under Section 14 read with Rules 5 and 7 and entered in the column of ownership as Jumla Mustarka Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Hasab Rasad Arazi Khewat and in the column of possession with COCP No. 2999 of 2011 -2- the proprietors, shall not vest the Gram Panchayat or the State Government, as the case may be, on the dint of sub-section (6) of Section 2(g) and the explanation appended thereto or any other provisions of the Act of 1961 of the Act of 1948.” 2. Learned counsel submitted that in terms thereof the mutation (Annexure P-4) was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. He further submitted that vide resolution dated 2.11.2011 (Annexure P-6), the land of the petitioner was being auctioned in violation of the aforesaid judgment. 3. On a specific query being put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how the property in Annexure P-6 is co-related with the property as mentioned in the jamabandi (Annexure P-1), he could not refer to any material on record. Learned counsel, however, stated that he would make a representation at the first instance to the concerned respondent pointing out this and prayed that the liberty be granted to the petitioner to approach this Court again in case the grievance is not redressed by the respondents. 4. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of by relegating the petitioner to approach the respondents at the first instance. It shall, however, be open to the petitioner to approach this Court again in case any grievance subsists. December 14, 2011 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE