IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** R.S.A.No. 4912 of 2002 Date of Decision: 17-10-2008 Fridabad Complex Administration, Fridabad .....Appellant vs. Smt. Sheela Devi and others .....Respondents Coram:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI 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. Manoj K.Sood, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate, for the respondents. **** AJAY TEWARI, J.(Oral) The following substantial questions of law were framed by this Court on 14.3.2003 while admitting the appeal:- 1)Whether the suit land had vested in Gram Panchayat Basleva, under the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and the effect thereof at the time when the Faridabad Complex Administration had come into existence, and the various villages had come within its preview. 2)Whether the suit land had vested in the Faridabad Complex Administration, on the coming into force of the R.S.A.No. 4912 of 2002 -2- Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992? 3)Whether the land in question had vested in the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad, on the establishment of the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad, in place of Faridabad Complex Administration? Counsel for the parties are agreed that question no. 1 is concluded by the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Jai Singh and others vs. State of Haryana reported as 2003(2) PLR 658. The relevant portion of which is as below:- “Insofar as all other cases are concerned, same shall stand disposed of in light of law laid down by us. Resultantly, if the mutations might have come into being on the dint of Act No. 9 of 1992 challenged herein in favour of the State or Gram Panchayat, the said mutations shall stand cancelled or set aside, leaving open for the Gram Panchayat to file an application for eviction under Section 7 or titled suit under Section 13-A, as the case may be, if the lands are such which have since been earmarked for common purposes under the scheme and the proprietors are in unauthorised occupation and, the proprietors to file a title suit in case the lands are such which form part of Bachat land, having not been earmarked for any common purpose in the scheme of consolidation and yet the Gram Panchayat is asserting its titled or is in possession thereof.” R.S.A.No. 4912 of 2002 -3- Learned counsel for the appellant, however, asserts that the judgment of this Court is subject matter of appeal before Hon'ble the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition bearing No. 18082 of 2003. In my opinion, mere pendency of appeal would not have the effect of eroding the judgment, if operation thereof has not been stayed by the superior Court. Question Nos. 2 and 3 (supra) are dependent on the decision of question no. 1. In consequence, this appeal is dismissed in terms of the decision in Jai Singh's case (supra.) Appellants to seek their remedy by way of filing individual actions. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE October 17, 2008 paramjit