IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: November 26 , 2009 1. RSA No. 2092 of 1980 Inder and another ...... Appellants Versus The Gram Sabha, Pinjore ...... Respondent 2. RSA No. 2056 of 1980 Shri Surjan Singh and others ...... Appellants Versus Gram Sabha, Pinjore ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Kuldeep S.Chander, Advocate for the appellant(s). Mr.Vivek Lamba, AAG, Haryana. **** 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? Ajay Tewari, J. This judgment will decide RSA Nos. 2092 and 2056 of 1980 since common questions of law and fact are involved therein. The appellants had filed a suit claiming that for the Shamlat deh land of their village which was acquired, compensation should not be paid to the Panchayat but should be paid to the proprietors. The main ground taken was that the village of the appellants was a 'Hilly Area' and in view of the dispensation for 'Hilly Area' made under the Punjab Village Common Lands(Regulation) Act, 1961 it were the proprietors who were entitled to get the compensation. Both the Courts came to the conclusion that the appellants were not the owners of the land in dispute. However, the appellants had not been able to establish that the land was 'Hilly Area' and that in my opinion even the special dispensation for 'Hilly Area' would not have the effect of not vesting the land with the Gram Panchayat. Consequently the Courts below held that the land rightly vested with the Gram Panchayat and dismissed the suit. No questions of law were proposed in the year 1980. Even today learned counsel for the appellants has argued that whether the land of the village of the appellants was 'Hilly Area?' In my opinion the question sought to be raised is a pure question of fact. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. Consequently these appeals are dismissed. No costs. A copy of this order be placed on the file of the connected case. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE November 27, 2009 sunita