C.R No. 3109 of 2006 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M No.14975 CII of 2010 and C.R No. 3109 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision : September 06, 2010 Rai Singh and others, ...... Petitioners v. Gram Panchayat Bhondsi, ...... Respondent *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate for the respondent. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 (Oral) C.M No.14975 CII of 2010 For the reasons recorded, this application is allowed, the order dated 21.4.2010 is recalled and the revision petition is restored to its original number. C.R No.3109 of 2006 This petition has been filed against the order of the appellate Court dated 1.5.2006 (Annexure P-2), reversing that of the trial Court and C.R No. 3109 of 2006 (O&M) ::2:: thereby dismissing an application for temporary injunction filed by the petitioners claiming that they are in cultivating possession of the land in dispute and that the respondent-Gram Panchayat should be restrained from interfering in their possession. At the very outset, it must be noticed that counsel for the petitioners has fairly stated that proceedings under Section 13A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 (for short `the Act') (as applicable to Haryana), which were instituted by the present petitioners, have been rejected upto the level of this Court (Single Bench). Counsel for the petitioners has further argued that Section 13A of the Act would apply only to a situation where a person challenges the vesting of land in favour of the Panchayat. He has, thus, argued that the dismissal of the claim under Section 13A of the Act would have no bearing on the present case where the petitioners have challenged the entries allegedly made illegally behind their back in favour of the Gram Panchayat. In the first place, it cannot be said that the findings recorded under Section 13A of the Act would have no relevance to the decision of the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. In any case, it can prima facie be held that the petitioners have not been able to establish their title to the land in dispute. Apart from that, it cannot be disputed that the land in dispute has been continuously described in the revenue record as banjar kadeem or Gair Mumkin Darar/Pahar. Once it is not disputed that no cultivation has ever been undertaken in the land in dispute, there is no question of the petitioners claiming cultivating possession. The third argument is that originally the land was about 140 kanals, out of which about 48 kanals was acquired and compensation C.R No. 3109 of 2006 (O&M) ::3:: thereof was given to the petitioners by the Reference Court. In my opinion, even though this would be the prima facie evidence that the petitioners have some interest in the property in dispute yet the other two factors mentioned above would offset this factor. Consequently, I am constrained to hold that no error can be pointed out in the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioners. Resultantly, this revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main petition has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) September 06, 2010. JUDGE `kk'