C.W.P. No.2456 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.2456 of 1989 Date of Decision.19.05.2010 Banarsi Dass son of Shri Chet Ram and others ........Petitioners Versus Gram Panchayat Bhil Chhapar throught its Sarpanch Shri Balwant Singh resident of Bhil Chhapar, Tehsil Jagadhari, District Ambala and others ........Respondents Present: None for the petitioners. Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, DAG, Haryana. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The case is of the year 1989 but at the time when the matter is called, there is no representation for the petitioners. I have examined the records with the assistance of the learned counsel, Sh. Sharma appearing on behalf of the State. The proceedings in challenge are the successive orders directing eviction under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation Act), 1961 on the ground that the petitioners were in unauthorized occupation of the property belonging to the Panchayat. Having regard to the dispute of title raised by the petitioners, the proceedings under Section 7 had been dealt with under Section 13A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation Act) 1961, when it was found that C.W.P. No.2456 of 1989 -2- the occupiers were not the owners of the property and their possession was illegal. It affirmed the title of the property in the Panchayat and directed eviction. The appeal and the revision confirmed the orders of the 1st Authority. The petitioners have challenged the decisions through this writ petition. 2. The decisions have been taken on factual consideration of the fact that the petitioners have not been able to show their possession prior to the date of the commencement of the Act, viz 26.01.1950. The Authorities have considered the statement of witnesses to the effect that the Gram Panchayat had given the land in dispute on Chakota @Rs.500/- per year and that the petitioners did not hold possession of the property in their own right. The issues involved in this care are purely factual, for the property in possession and the nature of holding have been dealt with on due consideration of the documents and oral evidence before the Appellate Court. There is no scope for intervention. 3. The writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 19, 2010 Pankaj*