C.W.P No. 10453 of 1988 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 10453 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision : September 13, 2010 Siri Chand and others, ...... Petitioners v. The Collector, Bhiwani and others, ...... Respondents *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Jaswant Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. R.A.Seoran, Advocate for respondents No.4 to 7. *** 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) This writ petition has been filed against the order, Annexure P- 1, whereby petitioners No. 1, 3 and 4 were ordered to remove encroachments over 64 sq. yards and 150 sq. yards of land respectively, as also the order, Annexure P-2 whereby the appeal of the petitioners against the order (Annexure P-1) was dismissed. Respondents No.4 to 7 had filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulations) Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) (as applicable to Haryana) claiming that the petitioners had C.W.P No. 10453 of 1988 (O&M) ::2:: encroached over the village path. In reply, the petitioners had admitted the ownership of the land vested in the shamlat but defended their possession on the ground that it was hereditary and since `before their memory'. On the request of the parties, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade visited the site in dispute, got the measurements conducted in the presence of the parties, and came to the conclusion as mentioned above. It is noteworthy to mention that the petitioners led no evidence in respect of their `hereditary possession'. After the appeal having been dismissed, the petitioners are before this Court. The first argument of counsel for the petitioners is that since the petitioners had raised a question of title, proceedings under Section 7 of the Act could not be initiated. In my opinion, no question of title was raised by the petitioners. On the contrary, they had admitted that the land in dispute was the property of shamlat Dhola. Counsel for the petitioners relies upon a decision of this Court in Bani Singh v. Rattan Singh and others, 1986 PLJ 577 to canvas that removal of obstructions from the village path cannot be decided by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade under Section 7 of the Act. It would be interesting to note the facts of the said decision. In that case, some persons had filed a civil suit against the appellant therein praying for an injunction restraining him to remove the encroachment upon the village path. In that suit, a plea was taken that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction and only the proceedings under the Act could be initiated. It was in that context that a Single Bench of this Court held that in such a case jurisdiction of the Civil Court could not be barred. In my opinion, the said decision has no applicability to the facts of the present case. C.W.P No. 10453 of 1988 (O&M) ::3:: No other point has been argued. Consequently, this writ 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 13, 2010. JUDGE `kk'