IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 748 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 24, 2009 Pritam Singh and others. … Appellants Versus State of Punjab and others. … Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.S. Khehar, Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.D. Anand. Present : Mr. Hitesh Kaplish, Advocate, for the appellants. J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral) The only issue canvassed at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellants so as to assail the order passed by the learned Single Judge is whether or not the land purchased by the appellants through various sale deeds is the land which was subject matter of consideration in the proceedings between the parties under the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961. Insofar as the instant issue is concerned, there can hardly be any claim so as to contest the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Insofar as the appellants are concerned, the learned Single Judge in his order dated 12.05.2009 categorically noticed, that the claim of the appellants based on purchases made by them through sale deeds was L.P.A. No. 748 of 2009 (O&M) contested on behalf of the respondents by asserting, that the sale deeds did not pertain to the land which is subject matter of controversy. In order to arrive at the aforesaid conclusion, the learned Single Judge relied upon a process of inspection and demarcation carried out at the spot in the presence of the appellants. On the basis of the aforesaid inspection and demarcation, it emerged that the sale deeds relied upon by the appellants/petitioners was in respect of land different from the land which was subject matter of consideration under the proceedings pending between the parties. Learned Single Judge also noticed, that the aforesaid demarcation / inspection, carried out in the presence of the appellants/petitioners, was not challenged by the appellants/petitioners, and as such, the same was binding on the appellants/petitioners. We find no infirmity in the aforesaid conclusion. No other submission was advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in the instant appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. In view of the fact that the main appeal has been dismissed on merits, we find no justification for passing a separate order on the application for condonation of delay (in filing the instant appeal). ( J.S. Khehar ) Judge August 24, 2009 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 2