C.W.P. No. 18783 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 18783 of 2011 Date of Decision:- 4.10.2011 Sukmani Stone Crasher .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present:- Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner. **** SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J(Oral). The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for quashing the order dated 28.5.2008 passed by The District Development and Panchayat Officer, Ropar (Exercising the powers of Collector, under The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961) whereby the highest bid given by the petitioner with regard to the lease of 2 acres 4 kanals of land was not approved; as well as the order dated 6.7.2011 passed by The Commissioner (Exercising the Powers of Commissioner, under The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961) whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order, has been dismissed. In this case the Gram Panchayat conducted the public auction to lease out certain land for the purpose of queering of minor minerals. On 5.11.2007 with regard to one query, the petitioner gave the highest bid. According to Rule 7-A of The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964, the said auction was to be approved by the District Development and Panchayat Officer as the same was conducted by the Panchayat in presence of Social Education and Panchayat Officer. When the C.W.P. No. 18783 of 2011 2 matter was put up before the DDPO it was brought to his notice that the Gram Panchayat has conducted the auction of the said land in violation of the injunction order passed by the Civil Court in which Gram Panchayat was one of the defendant. Keeping in view the said fact the DDPO does not approve the said auction. The said order was upheld in appeal by the Commissioner. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though learned counsel tried to convince this Court that the portion which was to be leased out to the petitioner was not subject matter of the civil suit in which injunction was granted, but he could not show any such material to us. In the impugned order it has been specifically stated by the Appellate Authority that the land which was auctioned in favour of the petitioner was subject matter of the civil suit. We have also pursued copy of the plaint of the said civil suit in which Khasra number 322/2/2 measuring 16 kanals 16 marlas was the subject matter of the suit. We have also gone through the order dated 6.7.2011 passed by the Appellate Authority. Before the Appellate Authority also no such point was raised or material was produced that the auction land was not subject matter of the civil suit. In view of the aforesaid factual position, we do not find any illegality in the impugned orders. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE 4.10.2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) reema JUDGE