Regular Second Appeal No.799 of 2011 (O & M ) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: February 17 , 2011. Regular Second Appeal No.799 of 2011 (O & M ) Mewa Singh ….Appellant Versus Baljeet Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 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.Bhupinder Singh Bairagi, Advocate, for the appellant. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Defendant No.1-appellant Mewa Singh is in second appeal against whom both the Courts below have decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 for permanent and prohibitory injunction restraining defendant No.1 – appellant from making any construction and encroachment over the land in dispute which is owned by the Gram Panchayat – defendant-respondent No.2. Regular Second Appeal No.799 of 2011 (O & M ) I have heard Mr.Bhupinder Singh Bairagi, Advocate, appearing for the appellant and have gone through the impugned judgments. The case of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 was that defendant No.1-appellant, in connivance with Gram Panchayat, defendant No.2-respondent No.2, had raised construction on the shamlat land belonging to the Gram Panchayat. In the written-statement filed by defendant No.2-respondent No.2 Gram Panchayat, it was pleaded that the defendant No.1-appellant had, in fact, raised construction by encroaching upon the land belonging to the Pancahyat and that the Panchayat was contemplating action against defendant No.1-appellant when the plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed the instant suit. The trial Court, after framing issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties, recording evidence of both the parties and hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, decreed the suit of the plaintiff- respondent No.1 vide judgment and decree dated 19.2.2008; thereby ordering the appellant to remove the encroachment from the shamlat land belonging to the Gram Panchayat. Defendant No.1-appellant No.1 went in appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court which was dismissed by the lower appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 12.12.2010. If the Gram Panchayat itself or it (Gram Panchayat) being in collusion with the appellant, did not take action against defendant No.1-appellant No.1 at the appropriate time to stop him from raising construction on the shamlat land and the Courts below, which are guardian and protector of the public property, took action against defendant No.1-appellant by ordering him to remove the encroachment, it was the right approach of the Courts below. No question of law arises in this case. Regular Second Appeal No.799 of 2011 (O & M ) Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. Dated: February 17, 2011. (MOHINDER PAL) ak JUDGE