IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.12901 of 2011 Gurdev Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Mohali & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 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.Rajesh K. Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has challenged the order of his ejectment on an application filed by respondent-Gram Panchayat from the suit land. The petitioner claims that earlier Sarpanch Baldev Singh had filed similar application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 in the year 1993 for eviction of the petitioner from the suit land. This petition was dismissed on 20.6.2003. Petitioner submits that finding in this case was that the shop in question was built by late Shri Khushi Chand in 1962 and he has not given any rent to Gram Panchayat. On this basis, the petitioner claimed adverse possession, which was stated to be undisputed and for a long period. Despite this evidence, again present Gram Panchayat, because of political rivalry, has moved another application seeking ejectment of the petitioner under Section 7 of the Act in the year 2007. Now the impugned order ejecting the petitioner is being passed. Civil Writ Petition No.12901 of 2011 :2: The primary grievance made by the petitioner is that this order is in violation of the earlier order where similar prayer has been declined. In the earlier order, what was observed was that Panchayat must get first demarcation of the land done as per law and that was the primary reason to decline the ejectment of the petitioner. Now the Panchayat has got the land demarcated and it is found that the land, where the petitioner is in occupation, is of the Panchayat. The submission that the person, who has done the demarcation, was not examined would not be of much consequences once the evidence of fresh demarcation, as per law, has been led and has been believed by the authorities concerned. No case for interference, therefore, is made out. Dismissed. July 22, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE