C.W.P. No.8988 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.8988 of 1992 Date of Decision : 06.05.2011 Chandan (died) through LRs …Petitioner Versus The Collector, Kurukshetra and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI -.- Present: Mr. Yogesh Saini, Advocate for Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kiran Pal Singh, Advocate for Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate for respondents No.3 to 5. *** AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) By this petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.02.1991 (Annexure P-5) and the order dated 15.10.1991 (Annexure P-6). By order Annexure P-5 an application under Section 7(2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act (as applicable C.W.P. No.8988 of 1992 -2- to Haryana) (for brevity ‘the Act’) for ejectment of the petitioner was allowed. In the appeal, the impugned order was set aside and the following directions were given:- “….Thus in these circumstances first of all question of title must be decided. Therefore, in these circumstances the impugned order is set aside and the case is sent to lower court with a direction that after converting this case under Section 13/A, reply and replication be taken and after framing the issues the question of title be decided, thereafter further proceedings be taken. Parties have been directed to appear in the lower court before the Sub-Divisional Officer (civil), Thanesar on 6.11.91 for further proceedings.” The petitioner has challenged these orders. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of a Civil Court. That suit was also filed for a declaration challenging the order under section 7 of the Act and one specific challenge was as follows:- “….The orders of ejectment of the plaintiff from the suit land are said to be without jurisdiction because it was incumbent upon the authorities under Punjab Village Common Lands Act to decide first the question of title, which was being raised by the plaintiff from the very beginning.” C.W.P. No.8988 of 1992 -3- More importantly in the written statement filed the following plea was taken:- “2. That in reply to para No.2 of the petition it is submitted that the petition under Section 13-A of the 1961 Act is pending in the court of Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Thanesar to decide the question of title. The same was filed by the respondents No.4 and 5. As during the last plan the son of the petitioner namely Darshan Lal became the Sarpanch of the Panchayat who did not watch the interest of the Panchayat properly and colluded with the petitioner. The case under Section 13-A is now fixed for the evidence of the respondent. In view of the order dated 15.10.1991 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Collector, Kurukshetra, petition under Section 7(2) is converted under Section 13-A of the Act. As such no grievance is left with the petitioner.” Thereafter by order dated 08.09.1992 this Court passed the following order:- “Admitted. Ad-interim stay to continue. Proceedings before the Assistant Collector, Kurukshetra are to continue.” C.W.P. No.8988 of 1992 -4- In these circumstances, no fault can be found with the orders Annexure P-5 and P-6. Consequently, this petition is dismissed. The parties shall obviously be bound by the decision on the question of title. ( AJAY TEWARI ) May 06, 2011 JUDGE ashish