IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 16752 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION : 14.12.2011 Ajaib Singh .... PETITIONER Versus Director, Rural Development and Panchayat and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P.C. Goyal, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. H.K. Brinda, Advocate, for respondent No.3. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) Petitioner Ajaib Singh has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the warrant of possession dated 7.6.2011 (Annexure P-2), issued by the District Development and Panchayat Officer, Roop Nagar (respondent No.2 herein), exercising the powers of the Collector under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), with a further prayer to direct the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat CWP No. 16752 of 2011 -2- (respondent No.1 herein), exercising the powers of the Commissioner, to stay the dispossession of the petitioner from the land in dispute during the pendency of the appeal filed by him against the order dated 30.9.2010, whereby his title suit filed under Section 11 of the Act was dismissed. Undisputedly, in the present case, vide order dated 21.11.2007, passed by the Collector on an application filed by the Gram Panchayat under Section 7 of the Act, the petitioner was ordered to be ejected from the land in dispute. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order has also been dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated 10.11.2010. Undisputedly, the said order passed under Section 7 of the Act has become final. In pursuance of that order, the warrant of possession was issued on 7.6.2011. However, during the pendency of the appeal before the Commissioner, the petitioner filed a title suit under Section 11 of the Act. The Collector, after providing full opportunity to the petitioner to prove his title over the disputed land, dismissed the said application on 30.9.2010. Against the said order, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Commissioner, which is still pending. However, the Commissioner did not grant any stay to the petitioner. In this petition, prayer of the petitioner is that execution of the warrant of possession issued against him be stayed and he may not be dispossessed during the pendency of the aforesaid appeal. During the course of hearing of this petition, the case was adjourned twice, providing an opportunity to the petitioner that stay can be CWP No. 16752 of 2011 -3- granted to him subject to the condition that he makes payment of mesne profits for the use and occupation of the land at the rate of ` 15,000/- per year per acre. The petitioner is present in the Court today. He is not ready to accept the said condition. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that a clear cut stay be granted to the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are not inclined to stay dispossession of the petitioner, particularly when the order evicting the petitioner under Section 7 of the Act has attained finality and the title suit filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Collector. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE December 14, 2011 ( MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR ) reema/ndj JUDGE