CWP No.12714 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.12714 of 2011 Date of decision: 20.07.2011 Santa Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Puneet Kumar Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioners. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Puneet Kumar Bansal, Advocate, has vehemently argued that against the order of dispossession passed by Collector in a proceeding under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), petitioners had filed a appeal before respondent No.1 i.e. Director, Rural Development Panchayats, Punjab (exercising the powers of Commissioner), Mohali, and an application, seeking interim stay of the operation and effect of the eviction order passed by Collector, was also moved before the appellate authority i.e. respondent No.1, however, the same was dismissed by respondent No.1 without assigning any reason observing detailed order shall be issued in writing. Notice of motion. CWP No.12714 of 2011 -2- On being asked, Mr. Jaswinder Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No.1. No need to issue notice to respondent No.2 at this stage, since respondent No.2 was not heard by the appellate authority while rejecting stay application. Present petition is being disposed of with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties at the admission stage. Undisputedly, petitioner had filed an appeal before the Director, Rural Development Panchayats, Punjab (exercising the powers of Commissioner), Mohali, challenging the order passed by Collector directing eviction of the petitioners under Section 7 of the Act; an application seeking stay of operation and effect of eviction order passed by Collector was also moved before the appellate authority, however, same was rejected on the very first day without assigning any reason observing detailed order shall be issued later on; while rejecting the stay application, appellate authority had issued notice to respondent No.2 and has summoned the lower Court record for 19.8.2011. In the opinion of this Court, in an appeal against the order of eviction/possession, first appellate authority while admitting the appeal or while issuing notice ordinarily should stay operation and effect of order/decree of eviction/possession otherwise unnecessary complications would arise in the pending appeal if appellant is dispossessed during the pendency of the appeal pursuant to the order impugned before the appellate authority. In the opinion of this Court, appellate authority was not well CWP No.12714 of 2011 -3- within its jurisdiction while rejecting stay application seeking stay of the eviction order on the very first day without assigning any reason while observing reasoned order will be passed in future. Action of the appellate authority cannot be appreciated and approved, which is totally illegal, unwarranted and amounts to misuse of the jurisdiction vested with the appellate authority. Petition is allowed. Status quo shall be maintained during the pendency of the appeal before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 is directed to decide the appeal at its own merit after hearing both the parties by speaking order in accordance with law. (Alok Singh) Judge July 20, 2011 R.S.