IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. M M O No. 49 of 2008 Date of decision: 26. 2. 2009 Vijay Ram Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 ..No. For the petitioner: None For respondent No.1: Mr. J.S.Guleria, Asstt. Advocate General For respondent No.2 Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral) Heard. The Panchayat had ordered for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.500/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents, for cutting the bamboo- trees of Sant Ram respondent No.2. The petitioner herein filed an appeal, under section 67 of the H.P.Panchayati Raj Act, against the order dated 23.7.2005 of the Gram Panchayat, Kothipura, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, which was dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs.200/-. Now the present petition 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?.yes. 2 has been filed, seeking to quash the order of the Gram Panchayat and also the Appellate Court. The matter was listed today for admission. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not present. However, I have heard the learned counsel for the respondents and gone through the record. On examining the record, I failed to find any illegality in the impugned order, passed by the Gram Panchayat, whereby an amount of Rs.500/- was ordered to be paid, as compensation to Sant Ram respondent No.2, for cutting his bamboo trees by the petitioner. His appeal was dismissed. There are concurrent findings of facts, as such the petition is dismissed in limine. The Registry is directed to return the records of the Gram Panchayat and that of the Appellate Court forthwith. Cr.M.P.No. 322 of 2008 No orders in view of the dismissal of the main petition. The application stands disposed of. February 26, 2009 (Surinder Singh),J. (D)