C.R.No.4141 of 2009 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.4141 of 2009. (O&M) Decided on: December 10, 2009. Sultan Singh .. Petitioner VERSUS Gram Panchayat and others .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.Shialak Ram Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the respondents. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The petitioner-plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in his possession in plot shown by letters BCEF having dimensions East 60 feet, West 62 feet, North 10 feet, South 20 feet bounded as under: - East Property of plaintiff . . . 1 C.R.No.4141 of 2009 (O&M) West Gali Sare-aam North Plot of Ishwar etc. South Plot of Rajo Along with the suit, he has filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, to restrain the defendants from dispossessing him from the said plot. Disputing description of the property, the defendants-respondents have taken up the specific plea that the plaintiff is in unauthorized possession of Khasra No.29/5/3/ of Khasra No.247 mins/237, Khatauni No.287, Khasra No.29/25/3, situated in the village Bholla, District Sonepat owned by Gram Panchayat and that plaintiff is actual owner in possession of Khasra Nos.28/21/2/3/ and 28/21/2/4/ and description of the property has been depicted in the Aks sajra produced by the defendants before the trial Court. The Courts below have dismissed the application of the plaintiff-petitioner by observing that the plaintiff has filed different suit regarding injunction. One suit is pertaining to Khasra Nos.28/21/2/3 and 28/21/2/4, and the present case give the description by boundaries in order to confuse the matter and that he has, in unauthorized manner, encroached upon Khasra No.29/25/3. I have heard counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner as well as the counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondents has, on the instructions, of his client submitted that there is no dispute regarding the ownership of possession of the plaintiff-petitioner regarding . . . 2 C.R.No.4141 of 2009 (O&M) Khasra No.28/21/2/3 and 28/12/2/4/ but so far as the property in dispute which forms part of Khasra No.29/25/3 measuring 11 marlas is concerned, the same has been illegally encroached upon by the plaintiff-petitioner. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the plaintiff has claimed that no proceedings under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Land Act, have been initiated against the plaintiff-appellant and steps are being taken to forcibly disposse the plaintiff. Today, counsel for the appellant informs that he has been informed by his client that an application under Section 7 of the Village Common Land Act, has been filed and summons have been received by the plaintiff from the Assistant Collector Ghanour. It is also apparent from the record that Khasra No.29/25/3 measuring 11 marlas is adjacent and towards Western side of Khasra Nos.28/21/2/3 and 28/`12/2/4. In view of the fact that due process to evict the plaintiff-petitioner has already been adopted, this petition has become infructuous. Disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE December 10, 2009. rka . . . 3