IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.20144 of 2009 Date of Decision: February 16, 2011 Ajit Singh & others .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Divisional Deputy Director Panchayats, Patiala & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. A.K. Walia, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. N.P.S. Mann, Advocate, for respondent No.2. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This civil writ petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order dated 24.6.2008 (Annexure P-2/T) and Order dated 15.9.2008 (Annexure P-3/T) passed by the Collector –Cum- Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development & Panchayats, Patiala. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners had filed an application under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’), as CWP No.20144 of 2009 [2] applicable to Punjab. Without adjudicating on the same, order under Section 7 of the Act has been passed at the instance of the Gram Panchayat of the village. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, Gram Panchayat, has filed reply in Court which is taken on record. It has been pointed out that the petition has been rendered infructuous, in so much as, warrants of possession were issued on 23.9.2009 and executed on 5.11.2009. Possession of the land has already been taken by the Gram Panchayat. So much so, lease rights in the land at issue have been auctioned on 16.11.2009 by the Gram Panchayat and therefore, third party is now in possession of the land. On the second count, it has been contended that under Sub Section (2) of Section 7 of the Act, an appeal against order of the Collector lies to the Commissioner within a period of 60 days of passing of the order. In the case in hand, no such appeal was filed and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. 4. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case. Plea of the respondent, Gram Panchayat, in regard to taking over of possession and giving the land on lease, is supported by documents and therefore, has to be accepted per-se. The issue under Section 7 of the Act, therefore, has been settled by way of implementation of the order of the Collector. 5. I have also taken note of the fact that although remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner, the appeals however were not filed, rather this writ petition has been filed. Thus, alternate remedy as provided under the Statute has not been availed of. 6. In case a petition under Section 11 of the Act had CWP No.20144 of 2009 [3] been filed, it was for the petitioners to file an application before that authority for stay of proceedings initiated under Section 7 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that proceedings/ execution of order passed by the Collector had been stayed. 7. No ground for interference in extraordinary writ jurisdiction is made out. 8. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) February 16, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?