CWP No.18814 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.18814 of 2007 Date of decision: 15.09.2010 Mohinder Singh and another ..... Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab through its Joint Development Commissioner (IRD), Chandigarh and another ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate wit Mr.Sidharth Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.C.S.Brar, DAG, Punjab for respondent no.1. Mr.R.K.Garg, Advocate for respondent no.2. ***** RAJIVE BHALLA, J.(ORAL) The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 30.01.2006 and 24.10.2007, passed by the Collector/Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Patiala and the Joint Development Commissioner (IRD) (exercising the powers of Commissioner) respectively, allowing the application for ejectment filed by the Gram Panchayat and dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the land is in possession of the petitioners as proprietors. The land in dispute is, recorded in the revenue record, as the ownership of Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Araji Khewat and in possession of the "Mushtarka Malkan," and therefore, does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. The application filed by respondent no.2 under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, CWP No.18814 of 2007 -2- 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) should therefore, have been rejected summarily. It is further prayed that as an appeal, is pending under Section 11 of the Act, the impugned orders should be kept in abeyance. Counsel for the Gram Panchayat however, submits that as the petitioners obtained the land on lease but refused to vacate the land upon expiry of the lease period, they cannot be heard to urge that they are proprietors, co-sharers or that the land does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. A prima-facie appraisal of the impugned orders reveals that the petitioners have no right to remain in possession. The land is recorded as the ownership of the Gram Panchayat and in the absence of any material to rebut this entry, or to establish the petitioners legal possession the Collector rightly directed their ejectment and the Commissioner rightly dismissed the appeal. However, there is another aspect of this dispute that requires consideration. Admittedly, the question whether the land belongs to the Gram Panchayat or vests in the proprietors is pending adjudication before the Director, Panchayats (exercising powers of the Commissioner under the Act), in an appeal arising out of the proceedings initiated by the petitioners under Section 11 of the Act. While affirming the impugned orders, the execution of the orders of the ejectment shall remain in abeyance till the decision of the appeal, pending before the Director, Panchayats. In case, the appeal is decided in favour of the petitioners, the impugned orders shall be a nullity but if the appeal is dismissed, the Gram Panchayat would be at liberty to seek possession by executing the impugned orders in accordance with law. CWP No.18814 of 2007 -3- Disposed of accordingly. The Commissioner is directed to decide the appeal within three months. 15.09.2010 [ RAJIVE BHALLA ] shamsher JUDGE