Rajiv Narain Raina, J. - (1.) C.M. No. 4687 -CH of 2014
(2.) CM is allowed as prayed for and Local Commissioner's report is taken on record. C.R. No. 495 of 2014 (O & M) A perusal of the report of the Local Commissioner dated 01st March, 2014 as sought by this Court by the order dated 20th February, 2014 leaves no manner of doubt that the stand taken in this petition was factually correct. It follows, that the stand taken by the respondents before this Court was false as both can't co -exist. The Local Commissioner appointed by this Court has answered the question framed by this Court in the motion order on which issue the parties are at variance, that is, whether the proposed Dharamshala is going to be built on vacant land or can only be constructed after demolishing existing structures/buildings. The Local Commissioner in his report has been answered in the favour of the petitioner recording after visiting the site in the following words: - "1. That there is no building or house on land bearing Khasra No. 33 and the same is lying vacant. Further no encroachment was found made on the said khasra number 33 by any person. Therefore, there is no requirement to demolish the structures/buildings. Further, the respectable persons present at the spot have also no objections for constructing the Dharamshala on the land bearing khasra No. 33. Therefore, the Dharashala can be constructed Dharamshala on the land bearing khasra No. 33.2. That the petitioners No. 2 to 14 have constructed their houses in khasra No. 32. All the petitioners have made statement that they have constructed their houses on the land bearing khasra No. 32 and there is no house in khasra No. 33. Further they have stated that they have no objections if the Dharamshala is constructed on the land bearing khasra No. 33. The copy of the statement alongwith true translated copy is enclosed as annexure LC/1." The report was made on the spot in the presence of the Halqa Patwari, the Chowkidar and Lambardar of the village, the former Sarpanch and four of the cooperating respondents namely, Dalu Ram, Beg Raj, Ram Autar and Rohtash who were present at the time when the Local Commissioner executed the commission. The photographs of the site have been appended with the report. In the appeal filed by Dalu Ram alone against the order of the trial Court, injunction was granted by setting the order of the trial Judge. That reversal has brought the petitioner to this court in the present petition filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution.
(3.) MR . Bahl, learned senior counsel points out that the lower Appellate Court in granting injunction to the opposite party, plaintiff/respondents failed to keep in mind the provisions of S. 2(g)(4a) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 as applicable to the State of Haryana that Makbuja Bashindagan Deh is Shamlat Deh land as recorded in the Jamabandi for 2006 -07.;