C.W.P. No.9214 of 2010 ::1:: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.9214 of 2010 Date of decision: 23.05.2011 Shyam Lal and another .. Petitioners Versus District Collector and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present:- Mr.Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. * * * * JASWANT SINGH, J. (ORAL) Both the petitioners, Shyam Lal and Sube Singh, r/o village Janoli, Tehsil & District Palwal, vide two separate lease agreements were allotted land on a five years' lease w.e.f. 6.07.2009 and 4.05.2010 respectively in an open auction conducted by the Gram Panchayat, Janoli. It is stated that on a complaint filed by the Sarpanch and one resident of the village, proceedings under Section 10-A of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') were initiated for cancellation of the said leases without impleading both the petitioners. However, vide common impugned orders dated 20.08.2010 (Annexure P-3), the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Palwal, cancelled both the said lease deeds. It is further stated that against the said impugned orders, both the C.W.P. No.9214 of 2010 ::2:: petitioners have filed separate appeals under sub-Section (7) of Section 10-A of the Act along with application for stay, which is stated to be pending before the District Collector, Palwal since September, 2010. Learned counsel states that subsequently, another complaint has been filed by other residents and the Gram Panchayat vide notices (Annexures P-6 and P-7) has directed the petitioners to collect their deposited lease amounts in respect of the terminated remaining lease period. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he does not press his prayer for cancellation of the lease deeds but states that the petitioners would be satisfied if the District Collector, Palwal is directed to decide the pending appeals or at least the stay application against the order of the cancellation of their lease deeds within a time frame lest their appeals would become illusory and meaningless. Notice of motion to respondent No.1 to 3. On the asking of the Court, Mr. M.S. Sindhu, Addl. A.G., Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3. Learned State counsel submits that he has no objection if such a direction, as prayed for, is issued in the interest of justice. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and in view of the agreed stand, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the District Collector, Palwal, to decide the application for stay, if C.W.P. No.9214 of 2010 ::3:: any, filed along with their respective appeals within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Disposed of in the above terms. (JASWANT SINGH) MAY 23, 2011 JUDGE sukhpreet