IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10427 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision:09.03.2011 Shubh Ram ....Petitioner versus The Commissioner, Hissar Division, Hissar and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: None for the petitioner Mr. Satbir Singh Goripuria, DAG, Haryana. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The case is of the year 1989, but there is no representation for the writ petitioner. I hasten to dispose of the case with the records available and with the assistance of the counsel for the respondent-State. 2. The petition arises out of proceedings initiated at the instance of a person called Rameshwar, who is arrayed as 3rd respondent in the petition. An objection came to be filed under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act for removal of encroachment of common land alleged to be in the possession of the petitioner. The petition had been filed before the Sub Divisional Officer exercising the power of ACIG. The petition had been dismissed. He had Civil Writ Petition No.10427 of 1989 (O&M) - 2 - preferred an appeal to the appellate authority, who held that the appellant/applicant in that case namely Rameshwar was using the land about which he was contending that the respondent was in legal encroachment of a pathway and, therefore, directed that if there was any remedy available under any other law, he would resort to have such remedy but an application filed under Section 7 was not maintainable. A revision had been filed which came to be disposed of by the Commissioner, Hissar Division, that there existed a dispute about the character of property of whether it belonged to gram panchayat or not and that it would become necessary to convert the proceedings into regular suit under Section 13-A of the Act. The revisional authority, therefore, held that the appropriate remedy would be to direct the Assistant Collector, Ist grade, to take up the proceedings under Section 13-A of the Act and decide on whether the disputed premises was a private property or not. It is this order which is in challenge by the writ petitioner. 3. I do not find any error in the approach by the first respondent in directing an adjudication in a competent Civil Court to determine the character of property and adjudicate on the respective claimants made by parties. Section 13-A of the Act is wide enough to accommodate in the adjudication a resolution of any dispute at the instance of any person representing the panchayat or any private individual claiming title to decide on whether the immovable property is shamlat deh or not or in whom the title vests in cases where the question of title had not been already raised and decided under proceedings under Civil Writ Petition No.10427 of 1989 (O&M) - 3 - Section 7. The order does not suffer from any vice to be susceptible to a challenge through a writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 09.03.2011 sanjeev