COCP No.1454 of 2010 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.1454 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:30.7.2010 Lakhmi .....Petitioner Versus Rajinder Singh Kataria and another ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 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: Shri Avinash Chander Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral) The grievance of the petitioner is that the order passed by the Collector on 11.5.2010 is against the mandate of the Full Bench of this Court in CWP No. 12309 of 1992 titled as “Lakhmi and others v. State of Haryana and others” decided on 13.3.2003. It is contended that the mutation of the land in dispute was entered in favour of the Gram Panchayat on 30.6.1992 on the basis of Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992. The Full Bench of this Court vide judgment reported as Jai Singh v. State of Haryana, 2003(2) PLR 658, inter-alia, held that the mutations which have come into being on the dint of Act No. 9 of 1992, shall stand cancelled or set aside leaving COCP No.1454 of 2010 (O&M) [2] open to the Gram Panchayat to file an application for eviction under Section 7 or title 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 unauthorized 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 title or is in possession thereof. The learned Collector while deciding the petition filed by the petitioner has held that the land in dispute was recorded as “Jumla Malkan and Deegar Hakdaran Hasab Hissa Rakba” during the consolidation proceedings and the same is being used for common purposes and that the petitioner has not produced any document that the land was not reserved for common purposes. In view of the said fact, it was found that the mutation cannot be set aside. The learned Collector has passed an order in exercise of his quasi judicial jurisdiction. If the petitioner is aggrieved against the finding recorded, the petitioner may avail of his remedy as may be available to the petitioner, in accordance with law. However, passing of the order by the Collector, does not show that it is in violation of the order passed by this Court. Consequently, I do not find that any case for initiation of the contempt proceedings is made out. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. [HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 30.7.2010 COCP No.1454 of 2010 (O&M) [3] ds