R17 Punjab Board of Revenue Notification Dated 22 10 2007, Clause 8 (a) Notification of the limbard grant of the words to be included in the village / adjoining villages and the respondent liability holder was allotted land in another village. There was no state land available in the designated village. The appellant compensated the allotment on the ground that the land had already been allotted, consequently the allotment was canceled, but the High Court had fixed the village / adjoining villages in clause 8 (a) of the 17 village 2006 notification. Keeping this official land, translating the words I joined. Any village in the subdivision can be allotted to a lumberman, no distinction can be made between Jind and its affiliates, and the word was not an additional one to be included in the village or the villages or villages adjacent to it were those who were physically. Agreed and shared borders with respondent's cows and would not include villages or cows that were not physically connected to the cellars' village, where the LAND was allotted to the respondents, It was not connected to the village where the respondents were designated as Lumberland Land. Question 22 did not fall within the scope of Clause 8 (A) of the 2007 notification and the High Court had erred in allowing the petition to be filed. Terminating the defendants and the grant, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision and reversed the Board of Revenue's appeal.
