CWP No.16061 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.16061 of 2011 Date of decision: 30.08.2011 Rajinder Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. S.K. Monga, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that land measuring 2 kanal 8 marlas comprising in rectangle No.111, khasra No.3/2, khewat No.787 min, khatoni No.1312 is owned by Gram Panchayat Amin, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. He further contends that one collusive suit was filed in the civil court by respondent No.8 Bal Krishan against Nagina Ram, respondent No.9, without impleading the Panchayat therein with intention to grab Panchayat property. He has rightly submitted that finding of the civil court in a suit between respondents No.8 and 9 shall not be res judicata against the true owner i.e. Gram Panchayat since Gram Panchayat was not party in the suit. He further contends that Amar Nath, habitant of village Amin, seeing the encroachment over the Panchayat land, has moved an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands CWP No.16061 of 2011 -2- (Regulation) Act, 1961, as applicable in the State of Haryana, before the Assistant Collector. However, before the Assistanat Collector Suresh Kumar son of Sh. Suraj Bhan, Panch of the village, has filed a collusive affidavit saying although land belongs to Gram Panchayat but it is in the possession of respondent No.8, therefore, Panchayat is not intending to initiate any proceeding against respondent No.8. Learned counsel further contends that Panchayat land is being grabbed by respondents No.8 and 9 with the collusion of Sarpanch and Panches and collusive proceedings are being initiated to grab the Panchayat land, which should be stopped. Petitioner has not moved any representation before respondents No.1, 2 or 3. Prima facie grievance of the petitioner, who is also a habitant of the village, seems to be bona fide. Present petition is disposed of with the direction that if any representation is made by the petitioner before respondents No.1, 2 or 3, raising the grievance raised in the present petition, same shall be decided by respondents No.1 to 3 in accordance with law within 30 days from the date representation is moved before the authorities. If authorities find that respondents No.8 and 9 are in illegal and unauthorized possession of the Panchayat land, it goes without saying that respondents No.1 to 3 shall take appropriate proceedings to ensure the removal of the encroachment from the Panchayat land. (Alok Singh) Judge August 30, 2011 R.S.