C.W.P No. 5416 of 1986 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 5416 of 1986 (O&M) Date of decision : September 15, 2010 Chanan Singh (dead) through L.Rs and another, ...... Petitioners, v. Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Gurnam Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S.Gill, DAG Punjab for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Balbir Singh, Advocate for respondent No.3. *** 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) By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the impugned orders of the statutory authorities (Annexures P-6 and P-7), directing their eviction from the land in dispute under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulations) Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”). The case of the petitioners was that they had been in possession C.W.P No. 5416 of 1986 (O&M) ::2:: of the land in dispute since time immemorial and in any case for a period of more than 12 years before the appointed date fixed under the Act. Consequently, they were entitled to protect their possession. In support thereof, the petitioners primarily placed a reliance on documents, Annexures P-1 and P-5. By document, Annexure P-1, which is a Khatauni, it is shown that the father and uncle of the petitioners were in possession of the following numbers :- “ 2471, 2477, 2478, 2518, 2570, 2519 and 2475.” By order, Annexure P-5, the Assistant Custodian Judicial Gurdaspur held that the uncle of the petitioners was in possession of the same numbers. The authorities below non-suited the petitioners since they were not able to link those numbers with the new post consolidation numbers viz Khasra Nos. 186 and 187. Today, during the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioners states that he can place on record necessary document linking up pre-consolidation numbers with the post consolidation numbers now in possession of the petitioners. It is not disputed that this is a pure question of fact which cannot be gone into by this Court in view of the contrary finding arrived at by the statutory competent authorities. Apart from that, it is too late in the day for such a permission to be granted to the petitioners. Once this was a specific ground on which the petitioners were non-suited, it was incumbent upon them to have placed the relevant material on record before the statutory authorities. Not only this material was not placed before the statutory authorities, no material was placed on record even when this writ petition was filed 24 years ago. The argument that it would be in the interest of justice to permit the petitioners to now place the C.W.P No. 5416 of 1986 (O&M) ::3:: material on record cannot be accepted. No reason has been shown even today as to why this material could not be placed. Consequently, this Court is left with no alternative except to hold that the petitioners have not been able to link the land in their possession before consolidation with the land now in their possession. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a decision of this Court reported as Harkesh v. The State of Haryana and others, 1979 PLJ 373. In my opinion, the said decision is not applicable to the present controversy because in that case it was an admitted fact that the petitioner therein had been in possession of the land in dispute prior to the appointed date under the Act. The only dispute was whether the petitioner therein was in possession as per his share or not. As mentioned above, the petitioners have not been able to conclusively establish that the land which is now in their possession was allotted to them after consolidation and in lieu of the land earlier in possession of their predecessors. Consequently, finding no merit in this writ petition, the same 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 15, 2010. JUDGE `kk'