IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 16703 of 2011 Date of decision:7th September, 2011 Mahender .......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr. R.S.Mamli, Advocate for the petitioner. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Hemant Gupta, J.(Oral) The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 17.12.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Narwana, order dated 30.03.2011 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Collector, District Jind and order dated 17.08.2011 passed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar (Annexure P-5) in the revision petition filed by the present petitioner. One Hukam Chand filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulations) Act, 1961 to seek the ejectment of the petitioner from the land, herein, comprising in khasra no. 740, on the basis of demarcation report dated 9.08.2008. Learned Civil Writ Petition No. 16703 of 2011 Assistant Collector allowed the said application, finding that in such demarcation, the petitioner, has been found to be unauthorised occupant and that he has refused to put his signature/thumb impressions on such report. In appeal, the petitioner argued that the demarcation report dated 9.08.2008 is of two khasra numbers, whereas, in subsequent demarcation report dated 11.02.2010, the entire rectangle was measured. But subsequent demarcation report as well as the earlier demarcation report dated 14.02.1996 has been ignored. He has also argued that the petitioner was not present at the time of the report dated 9.08.2008 and that it is wrongly mentioned that he has refused to put thumb impression/signature on such report. Learned Collector, District Jind, considered the argument and found that the demarcation report dated 9.08.2008 is clear. It reflects unauthorised possession of the petitioner. It was also directed that the SDO (Civil) will inspect the spot, if authorised occupation is not removed then the same should be removed. In revision petition, again the Commissioner dismissed the revision by holding that there is no authenticity of the demarcation report of the year 2010, obtained by the petitioner on his own. Before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the demarcation report dated 9.08.2008 was given without carrying out demarcation in accordance with the instructions of the Financial Commissioner, therefore, the orders are liable to be set aside. 2 Civil Writ Petition No. 16703 of 2011 We do not find any such argument was raised before any of the authorities. Such question of fact cannot be permitted to be raised by the petitioner before this Court in the writ petition for the first time. It is a concurrent finding of the authorities under the Act that the petitioner has illegally encroached upon khasra no. 740 as per the demarcation report dated 9.05.2008. In view of the above, we do not filed any irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the authorities which may warrant any interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed. [HEMANT GUPTA] JUDGE [VIJENDER SINGH MALIK] JUDGE 7th September, 2011 Shivani Kaushik 3