C.W.P No. 2126 of 1987 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 2126 of 1987 (O&M) Date of decision : December 10, 2010 Shri Dutt, dead, through L.Rs ...... Petitioner v. Collector Kurukshetra and others, ...... Respondents *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. C.B.Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 10.10.1986 and 17.2.1987 (Annexures P-2 and P-10 respectively), whereby an application, filed by the Gram Panchayat of village Padla, Tehsil Kaithal, District Kurukshetra (now District Kaithal) praying for eviction of the petitioner from the panchayat land, was allowed. The main thrust of the petition is that originally the petitioner was wrongly proceeded against exparte by the Assistant Collector. Thereafter, in appeal the petitioner moved an application for placing on C.W.P No. 2126 of 1987 (O&M) ::2:: record written statement and permission to lead evidence. However, without deciding the same, the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed, vide the impugned order, Annexure P-10. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner has placed on record the evidence which he proposed to lead viz. some documents showing that the property belonged to the government, as also some documents showing that the petitioner had been released electricity connection in the year 1978. A perusal of the order of the Appellate Authority reveals that the main reason which weighed with the learned Collector in dismissing the appeal was the fact that counsel for the petitioner had offered to pay the price of the land under his occupation to the Gram Panchayat. In my view, this is an admission that the land did actually belong to the Panchayat. Further, the official respondents have also placed on record a copy of the judgment, Annexure R-3, which was rendered in a civil suit filed by the petitioner against some private respondents wherein it was alleged that the land in dispute had been obtained by the petitioner in exchange from the Gram Panchayat. However, no such plea has been taken in the present writ petition. The question before this Court sitting in extra ordinary jurisdiction is whether the fact that no specific order was passed on the application for placing on record written statement and evidence, would in the circumstances of the case be such of a nature as to render all the proceedings void. In extra ordinary jurisdiction, this Court cannot be held to be bound by the strict provisions of civil law. The fact of the matter is that in a civil suit, the petitioner had taken a plea that he had obtained the C.W.P No. 2126 of 1987 (O&M) ::3:: disputed land in exchange from the Gram Panchayat but no such plea has been taken in the writ petition. On the contrary, as mentioned above, counsel for the petitioner had made a categoric offer before the Appellate Authority that the petitioner was ready to pay the price of the land in dispute. Counsel for the petitioner has, however, made an alternative prayer that since the shops in dispute have been existing for the last more than three decades, he is ready to compensate the Gram Panchayat either by way of money or by way of exchange of land. In case, the petitioner makes such a request to the competent authority, the same shall be considered and decided, in accordance with law. With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) December 10, 2010. JUDGE `kk'