Civil Writ Petition No.6475 of 2008 (O&M) : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 11, 2009 Surjit Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS The Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr.R.S.Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr.Atul Gaur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr.Ajit Attri, Advocate, for respondent No.3. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.6475 of 2008 (Surjit Singh Vs. Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala), 6478 of 2008 (Pritam Singh Vs. Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala), 6483 of 2008 (Jaswant Singh Vs. Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala) and 6528 of 2008 (Kulwant Singh Vs. Civil Writ Petition No.6475 of 2008 (O&M) : 2 : Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala. The facts are taken from Civil Writ Petition No.6475 of 2008. On 15.5.1997, petitioner alongwith his three brothers purchased the disputed land, which is part of shamlat area. On 13.7.2001, the petitioner filed an application under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act (for short “the Act”) for decision on title in regard to the land purchased by him. This suit was adjourned sine-die on 6.1.2003 in order to await the decision of Full Bench in the case of Jai Singh Vs. State, which has now been decided and is reported as Jai Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (3) RCR (Civil) 578. Respondent-Gram Panchayat filed an application for eviction of the petitioner under Sections 4,5,7 of the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction & Rent Recovery), Act pleading that the land in dispute is a public premises. This application was moved on 15.5.2006 without awaiting the outcome of the decision of the suit filed under Section 13-A of the Act. Gram Panchayat, in the meantime, appears to have filed a suit for declaration that sale deeds in favour of the petitioner were null and void as the land was owned by the Gram Panchayat. This suit was decreed on 15.9.2004. Appeal against this was allowed on 16.12.2004. Thereafter no action was taken by the Gram Panchayat and instead application for eviction under the Act is filed. The petitioner filed an application seeking dismissal of the suit on the ground that the eviction application filed by the Panchayat was not maintainable. It was pleaded that the issue of maintainability be decided first and there was no need to record evidence in this case as the plea affects the jurisdiction of the Court. It was also pleaded Civil Writ Petition No.6475 of 2008 (O&M) : 3 : that the suit could also not proceed on the ground that the application under Section 13-A of the Act was pending. This application filed by the petitioner was rejected on 10.9.2007 (Annexure P-6). It is observed that suit filed under Section 13-A of the Act and pending has no concern with the application. The petitioner filed appeal against this order before Commissioner, Ambala, who has declined to interfere in the impugned order on the ground that proceedings of eviction will have no connection with the suit under Section 13-A as the petitioners are Pattedars and are required to be evicted after expiry of the lease period. It is also observed that appeal is against an interim order and Collector has not so far passed any order in the prayer made by the petitioner regarding maintainability or otherwise of the application. These orders are accordingly challenged through the present writ petitions. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to Banwari Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2009(1) P.L.R.394 to urge that petition for eviction of an unauthorised or illegal occupant of the Gram Panchayat land is not maintainable under the provisions of the Public Premises Act in the State of Haryana and such petition can only be filed by the Gram Panchayat under the provisions of Section 7(1) of the Punjab Village Commons Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The objection about the maintainability of this application under the provisions of the Public Premises Act has been raised by the petitioner before the Collector. The Collector is yet to take a final decision thereon. So far, he has only declined the prayer of the petitioner to decide this as first issue, without deciding the case on merits. I am not inclined to interfere in exercise Civil Writ Petition No.6475 of 2008 (O&M) : 4 : of writ jurisdiction at this stage. The petitioner has to raise this plea about the maintainability of the petition filed by the Gram Panchayat before the Collector, who is to then decide the same. The petitioner thereafter has a right to file an appeal and if aggrieved may approach other Forums as per law. At this stage, it is premature for the petitioner to file the writ petition. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. The petitioner would be at liberty to raise all his pleas before the Collector, including the maintainability and would also be at liberty to take any further appropriate proceedings in case any adverse order is passed against him. May 11, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE