In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... (1) Civil Revision No.3658 of 2003 ..... Date of decision:20.10.2009 The Gram Panchayat of Village Sotha .....Petitioner v. Rajbir and others .....Respondents .... (2) Civil Revision No.3661 of 2003 ..... The Gram Panchayat of Village Sotha .....Petitioner v. Hari Kishan .....Respondent .... (3) Civil Revision No.3662 of 2003 ..... The Gram Panchayat of Village Sotha .....Petitioner v. Pala and others .....Respondents .... (4) Civil Revision No.3663 of 2003 ..... The Gram Panchayat of Village Sotha .....Petitioner v. Satbir and others Civil Revision Nos.3658/2003 etc. [2] .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the respondents. ..... S.S. Saron, J. This order will dispose of Civil Revision petitions Nos. 3658, 3661, 3662 and 3663 of 2003, which have been filed by the Gram Panchayat, Village Sotha, Tehsil and District Hisar through its Sarpanch against the orders dated 29.1.2003 in C.R.,No.3658 of 2003 and 21.2.2003 in C.R.Nos. 3661, 3662 and 3663 of 2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hissar whereby the applications filed by the respective plaintiffs-respondents for grant of ad interim stay, which were dismissed by the learned trial Court, have been accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar. According to the petitioner Gram Panchayat the land of the Panchayat was in the illegal occupation of the respective plaintiffs- respondents. Therefore, on 6.7.2000 it filed applications under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (as applicable in Haryana) (`Act' – for short) before the Assistant Collector, Hissar seeking their eviction. The said applications were allowed by the Assistant Collector, Hissar on 13.11.2001. After the passing of the said orders by the Assistant Collector, the plaintiffs-respondents in C.R. Nos.3662 and 3663 of 2003 and the plaintiffs-respondents in C.R. Nos. 3658 and 3661 of 2003 filed civil suits on 20.3.2002 and 23.3.2002 respectively. It was inter alia alleged by the respective plaintiffs-respondents that they were tenants over Civil Revision Nos.3658/2003 etc. [3] the suit land from the time of their forefathers and they were never in illegal or unauthorized possession of the same. It was alleged that the eviction orders passed against them by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hisar under Section 7 of the Act were wrong, illegal, without jurisdiction, null and void, mala fide and against the decision of the Collector and the learned Commissioner and, therefore, not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs. A further prayer was made for grant of permanent injunction against the petitioner-Gram Panchayat from dispossessing them from the disputed land or to recover penalty from them. During the pendency of the suit a prayer was made for the grant of ad interim injunction. The application for the grant of ad interim injunction was declined by the learned trial Court vide orders dated 2.5.2002 in C.R. No. 3658 of 2003 and dated 6.4.2002 in C.R. Nos. 3661, 3662 and 3663 of 2003. It was observed prima facie that the petitioner Gram Panchayat was acting in due course of law. The plaintiffs-respondents filed appeals which were accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Hissar vide orders dated 29.1.2003 in C.R. Nos. 3658 of 2003 and dated 21.2.2003 in C.R. Nos. 3661, 3662 and 3663 of 2003 and the plaintiffs-respondents were granted ad interim injunction. The petitioner Gram Panchayat aggrieved against the said orders have filed the present revision petitions and this Court vide separate orders on 14.9.2004 issued notice of motion in C.R. Nos. 3661, 3662 and 3663 of 2003 and meanwhile stayed the operation of the impugned orders. The said revision petitions were admitted on 13.1.2006 and the interim orders dated 14.9.2004 were made absolute. C.R.No. 3658 of 2003 was Civil Revision Nos.3658/2003 etc. [4] admitted on 4.3.2004 and the operation of the impugned order passed in the said case was also stayed. The effect of stay orders passed by this Court is that the petitioner-Gram Panchayat can execute the orders passed in their favour under Section 7 of the Act. Both the learned counsel, who are appearing for the respective parties, are unaware as to what is the stage of the proceedings in the trial Court and, therefore, are unable to state as to whether the suits have been finally disposed of or are still pending. In the circumstances, the present civil revision petitions are disposed of with the directions that the interim orders passed by this Court shall be treated as infructuous in case the suits have been decided by the learned trial Court, however, if they have not been decided and disposed of, the same shall continue to be operative till the civil suits are finally disposed of. October 20, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*