IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 12820 of 2011 Date of Decision: September 09, 2011 Ravinder Singh ….Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, Sr. DAG, Punjab, for the respondents. 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Perusal of the record shows that earlier Gurdev Singh, grandfather of the petitioner, had filed a suit under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), claiming title over the property in dispute. Suit filed by Gurdev Singh, grandfather of the petitioner, was dismissed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Dev.)-cum- Collector, Ludhiana, on 18.01.2005 having observed that CWP No. 12820 of 2011 Gurdev Singh failed to prove his ownership and title over the property in question and property in question is a shamlat deh belonging to the Panchayat. Thereafter, petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of the Village on 18.05.2008. Petitioner was placed under suspension vide impugned order dated 25.03.2011 passed by respondent No.2 and upheld by respondent no.1 vide order dated 09.05.2011 on the ground that petitioner being Sarpanch has failed to get issued warrant of possession against his own grandfather, namely, Gurdev Singh, whose suit under Section 11 of the Act was dismissed vide order dated 18.01.2005. Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, has fairly submitted that after dismissal of the suit under Section 11 of the Act, a proper action ought to have been taken against Gurdev Singh for his eviction under Section 7 of the Act. He further states that now action shall be taken against grandfather of the petitioner under Section 7 of the Act. I do not find any material on the record to suggest that petitioner is in illegal and unauthorized possession of the panchayat land. The only allegation that petitioner failed to get issued warrant of possession is no ground to place him under suspension in view of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Kaki Devi 2 CWP No. 12820 of 2011 versus State of Punjab, reported in 2010(4) RCR (Civil) 317. Therefore, present petition is allowed. Impugned orders are set aside. Respondents shall be at liberty to take appropriate action against the eviction of the encroacher i.e. Gurdev Singh, in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that petitioner shall also take appropriate steps for removal of the encroachment, in accordance with law, within 90 days positively. September 09, 2011 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 3