IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 3714 of 2010 Date of Decision: 05.04.2011 Sucha Singh ...Petitioner Versus The Principal Secretary, Panchayats and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA 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? Present : None for the petitioner. Ms. Madhu Dayal, Addl. A.G. Punjab Mr. J.S.Bandohal, Advocate, for the respondent No.6. **** RANJAN GOGOI, C.J.(Oral) This Public Interest Litigation has been filed seeking a direction to compel the respondents No.1 to 6 to remove the alleged unauthorized construction/encroachment from the shamlat/common land situated in lal dora of village Marauli Khurd, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar, Punjab. The detail of the said land has been shown in the site plan enclosed as Annexure P-1 to the writ petition. A reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents No.1, 4 and 5. Having gone through the said reply we find that a civil suit is pending in respect of the land in question. That apart a proceeding under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 is also pending in appeal before the Appellate Authority. CWP No. 3714 of 2010 [2] The averments made in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents No. 1, 4 and 5 stand uncontroverted by the petitioner who has not filed any rejoinder inspite of grant of several opportunities. From the said averments made in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents No. 1, 4 and 5 (para No.2) it appears that the title to the land in question is disputed. Consequently any determination of the entitlement of the petitioner to the relief sought would require us to go into the highly disputed question of title to the land. Such an exercise would not be appropriate in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, decline to entertain this PIL any further. It is accordingly dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. (RANJAN GOGOI) CHIEF JUSTICE (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) JUDGE 05.04.2011 'ravinder'