IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.4777 of 2007 Date of Decision:- 24.04.2008 Jaswant Singh ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.J.S.Bhandowal, Advocate. vs. Collector/Additional D.C. (Development) and another ....Respondent(s) through Mr.Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the 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? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) Reply/affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2 is taken on record. This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 30.8.2007 passed by the Collector, Fatehgarh Sahib whereby opportunity to the petitioner to cross- examine the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of village Railly was denied and the same has been ordered to be closed. The facts may be noticed briefly. The petitioner has filed a petition under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 to declare him as owner in possession of the subject property. In the above-stated petition, one Santokh Singh, Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat appeared and his examination-in-chief was recorded. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, was not present, therefore, the case was passed over thrice to enable the counsel to cross-examine the said witness. As the petitioner's counsel did not turn up, the learned Collector ordered closure of the cross-examination. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, learned counsel for the respondent-Gram Panchayat has been heard. It is true that the petitioner's counsel ought to have appeared and cross-examined the afore-stated witness, however, it appears from the grounds of revision that the learned counsel could not appear and cross- examine the Sarpanch due to bona fide reasons which were beyond his control. Consequently and for the reasons aforestated, this revision petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 30.8.2007 is set aside and it is directed that one more opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner to cross-examine Santokh Singh who appeared on behalf of the Gram Panchayat, however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.2500/- to be paid by the petitioner. Dasti. April 24, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE