IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.WP No. 13833 of 2011. [O&M] Date of Decision: 2nd August, 2011. Harjinder Singh Petitioner through Mr. Harsh Bunger, Advocate Versus Director, Rural Development & Panchayat, Punjab & Ors. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] On a petition filed by the Gram Panchayat under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands [Regulation] Act, 1961, an eviction order dated 09.111.2010 has been passed against the petitioner by the Collector. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the same and sought an ad-interim stay. The Appellate Authority has declined stay against dispossession after observing that the petitioner could not show any documentary evidence in support of his ownership claim. Learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be right in contending that in case the petitioner is meanwhile dispossessed, his appeal would, in a way, be rendered infructuous. However, the petitioner, who has been found to be in unauthorized possession of the Gram Panchayat land can not be granted a blanket ad-interim stay and he is liable to be put to terms and conditions in this regard. The record reveals that the eviction petition was filed by the Gram Panchayat in the year 2009. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction that if the petitioner deposits a sum of `20,000/- per acre for the year 2008-09 onwards within a period of ten days from today with the Gram Panchayat of Kotla Gajran, which shall be deposited by the petitioner and accepted by the Gram Panchayat without prejudice to their legal rights, the dispossession of the petitioner shall remain stayed till the disposal of the appeal by the Appellate Authority. Disposed of. Dasti. August 02, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE