-1- Civil Revision No.353 of 2011 (O&M). IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: January 19, 2011. Civil Revision No.353 of 2011 (O&M). Nazar ... Petitioner VERSUS Sattar Ali and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 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. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. The challenge in the present revision petition is to the orders passed by the learned trial Judge whereby on an application moved by the Gram Panchayat (defendant-respondent) in a suit filed by plaintiffs (respondents Nos.1 and 2) for permanent injunction, the Gram Panchayat was allowed to cut and remove the fallen tree above the root level and sell it out as it -2- Civil Revision No.353 of 2011 (O&M). was causing undue obstruction at the site and thereafter police help was given to the auction purchasers of the said tree as defendants Nos. 1 to 4 were not allowing the auction purchasers to lift the fallen tree from the spot as per the order of the trial Court. The grievance of the petitioner-defendant No.3 along with defendants-respondents Nos.4 to 6 before the learned trial Judge, inter alia, was that the auction was not conducted legally and tree was sold at much less value. It may be mentioned here that the sale proceeds of the auction i.e Rs.12,500/- were deposited in the Court on 17.12.2010. According to the petitioner-defendant No.3 and defendants- respondents Nos.4 to 6, the auction could have fetched amount to the tune of Rs.20,000/-. They had, accordingly, filed an application for re-auction of the tree. The learned trial Judge did not find any merit in the said prayer as the Gram Panchayat had conducted the auction proceedings in a lawful manner. Proper resolution was passed by the Panchayat, advertisement was given in the newspaper and the auction was conducted in the `Chaupal' of the village in the presence of the villagers. Since, the petitioner-defendant No.1 and defendants-respondents Nos.4 to 6 were not allowing the order of the Court to be implemented, the trial Court was justified in granting police help for the implementation of its order. Under the circumstances, I do not see any illegality in both the orders passed by the trial Court whereby it had allowed cutting and auctioning of the tree and thereafter it -3- Civil Revision No.353 of 2011 (O&M). had allowed police help for implementing its earlier order. Resultantly, I do not see any ground which may warrant interference by this Court in the impugned orders passed by the trial Court. This revision is, accordingly, hereby dismissed being without any merit. ( MOHINDER PAL ) January 19, 2011. JUDGE ak