IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP.NO.12806 of 2006 DATE OF ORDER:4.4.2008 Kanwaljit Singh & Others ....Petitioner(s) through Sh. Vikram Bali, Advocate. Versus State of Punjab and Others .....Respondent(s) through Sh. Akshay Bhan, Advocate Sh. Amol Rattan, Addl.A.G, Punjab. Sh. Heman Aggarwal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER JAIN,CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH .*.*. 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? VIJENDER JAIN, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL) This writ petition/public interest litigation was filed for issuance of a writ or direction to the respondents quashing the Memorandum of Understanding dated August 01, 2006 signed between the Government of Punjab and respondent No.3. Learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondent-State of Punjab has contended that this petition has become infructuous in view of the amendment made vide notification dated 16.1.2008 in Rule 12-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964. Amended Rule 12-A of the said Rules is to the following effect: “12-A. Transfer of Land- Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, a Panchayat may, with the previous approval of the State Government, transfer the Shamlat Land vested in it by the ways and subject to the terms and conditions, mentioned below: CWP.NO.12806 of 2006 #2# (a) By way of sale to any Government Department, its Boards, Corporations or local authorities for their projects or schemes, and for the projects, sponsored or aided by the State Government in which the share of the State Government is not less than 50 per cent; and (b) By way of lease up to fifty per cent of the culturable area of Shamlat Land, vested in a Panchayat up to a period of 33 years to any corporation, company, body corporate or any legal entity, whose projects or schemes have been approved and sponsored by any of the Administrative Departments of the State Government under any law or policy, notified by the State Government.” In view of this factual position, counsel for the petitioner does not press this petition. Shri Akshay Bhan, Advocate appearing for respondent No.3 states that as the State has amended the Rules, he will file a separate writ petition, if considered necessary. In view of the above, petition stands disposed of. ( VIJENDER JAIN ) CHIEF JUSTICE April 04, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE