IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No.657 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.7.2009 Gram Panchayat, Fadma -----Appellant Vs. Brahma Nand and others. -----Respondents AND L.P.A. No.658 of 2009 (O&M) Gurbachan Singh. -----Appellant Vs. Brahma Nand and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. H.K. Aurora, Advocate in LPA No.657/09 & Mr. A.S. Gill, Advocate in LPA No.658/09 for the appellants. ----- ORDER: 1. This order will dispose of LPA No.657 of 2009 filed by the Gram Panchayat and LPA No.658 of 2009 filed by Gurbachan Singh. 2. Gram Panchayat initiated proceedings under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Regulation Act, 1961. The application was dismissed on 30.5.2006, but was allowed by the Appellate Authority. The authorities took into account reports LPA Nos.657 & 658 of 2009 of the Local Commissioner dated 24.7.2003 and 7.8.2005. When the writ petition came up for hearing, counsel for the parties made a statement that only question was whether there was encroachment over the passage measuring 59 karams X 3 karams, which fact may be ascertained by appointing a Local Commissioner. Accordingly, Mr. Ashok Verma was appointed as Local Commissioner, who gave his report. 3. Learned Single Judge after considering the report held that the width of the passage was found to be 3 karams wide at every place and thus, there was no encroachment on Panchayat land. The petition was accordingly allowed and the order of the Commissioner, remanding the matter to the Collector, was set aside. It was, however, made clear that suit filed by Gurbachan Singh, appellant in LPA No.658 of 2009, which was pending, will be decided on its own merits, without being influenced by the observations made in the order of the learned Single Judge. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant in LPA No.658 of 2009 submitted that the learned Single Judge has overlooked the Site Plan, Annexure A-2, which shows that even though the width of the passage remained the same, the same was passing through the land of the appellant. 6. In view of the fact that suit in this regard was already pending and it has been made clear by the learned Single Judge 2 LPA Nos.657 & 658 of 2009 that the suit will be decided without being influenced by the observations made by him and in the writ petition, we need not make any comment on this submission. The said appellant was not impleaded as party and was also not a party before the concerned authorities. He is, thus, not affected by the impugned order. 7. As far as the Panchayat is concerned, the matter having been decided on the basis of report of the Local Commissioner, in pursuance of joint statement made by counsel for the writ petitioner and the Panchayat, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 8. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 27, 2009 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) ashwani JUDGE 3