Civil Writ Petition No. 10284 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 10284 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 6.7.2010 Jatinder Pal Singh (Minor) …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ambika Luthra, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for respondents No.1 to 3 and 5. Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.4. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The land measuring 85 kanals 4 marlas consisting in plot No. 6, a detail of which has been given in para No.2 of the writ petition, was put to auction by the Gram Panchayat of village Lohke Khurd, for grant of lease for a period of four years. The petitioner, who is a minor, through his father Gurmail Singh took the land on lease and lease money was fixed as Rs.25,500/-. This land was given on lease to the petitioner on the basis of a resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat. Subsequently, the elections of Gram Panchayat were held and new office bearers of the Panchayat were elected. They had passed a resolution on 30.4.2009 and sought to cancel the lease. The Civil Writ Petition No. 10284 of 2009 (O&M) 2 cancellation of lease, by the subsequent Panchayat, has been agitated before various authorities. In the present petition, quashing of order dated 6.7.2009 (Annexure P6), passed by the Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Government of Punjab, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Chandigarh, has been sought, whereby order dated 17.5.2009, passed by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, was set aside. This Court need not go into the controversy as the parties are in agreement that the period of lease is over. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to litigation, he was deprived of rightful fruit of the land for a period of one year and, therefore, this Court should extend the period of lease for a period of one year. I am afraid that this prayer of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Whether the petitioner was denied to cultivate the land for a period of one year or not is a disputed question of fact. Furthermore, in case the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, he can always seek compensation, in monetary terms, by approaching the Court of competent jurisdiction. With the observations made above, the present writ petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge July 6, 2010 “DK”