Civil Writ Petition No.979 of 2009 (O&M) : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: January 27, 2009 Puran Chand & others .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab & 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. Rajesh K.Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Without laying down any proper basis, the petitioners have sought issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari/mandamus/prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. The petitioners have, thus, prayed for all possible writs without realising how these writs are maintainable in this case. The direction sought is for respondent No.6, which is the Gram Panchayat, to deposit the proceed received from auction in a fixed deposit. There is no order passed by any judicial or quasi judicial authorities which can be said to be in excess of jurisdiction, which would require to be corrected. There is no order and only an act of auction held by respondent-Gram Panchayat, which is under Civil Writ Petition No.979 of 2009 (O&M) : 2 : challenge and prayer is for issuing writ of prohibition. No basis is laid in the writ petition for issuing direction to any authority which is either not performing its duty or is exceeding its jurisdiction There is dispute between the petitioners and the Gram Panchayat about the title which is under adjudication. When asked to explain as to how the writ petition for a prayer made in the petition would be maintainable, the counsel would refer to an earlier order passed by this court in CWP No.2456 of 2001. It is seen that the petitioners had filed this writ petition with the allegation that land belonging to the petitioners was wrongly mutated in the name of Gram Panchayat and was being put to auction by the Gram Panchayat. Prayer was to restrain the Gram Panchayat from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioners and not to alienate, cut or remove the trees. While issuing notice, this court directed that the respondent shall not cut the trees without the permission of the court. Respondent-Gram Panchayat subsequently filed an application for vacation of this order pointing out that the petitioners have no right in the land. It was also stated that the trees have been auctioned for a sum of Rs.74.00 lacs. This court had issued direction that the entire amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalised bank and this amount was directed not to be released without the prior permission of the court. It appears that ultimately this writ petition was disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to file a tittle suit within a period of three months and in case no suit was filed, Gram Panchayat was held entitled to withdraw this amount. This amount was not deposited primarily because the contractor, who had given this auction, could Civil Writ Petition No.979 of 2009 (O&M) : 3 : not cut the trees. The auction has now again been held and accordingly a prayer is repeated for deposit of the auction amount. The petitioners have filed a petition under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, which seems to be pending. Since the title suit is being adjudicated, the petitioners would not be in any competent position to file this present petition to seek direction to regulate the auction. Earlier writ petition was entertained when no suit was pending between the parties for deciding the title. The petitioners are well within their rights to seek any interim relief either for stay of auction or for deposit of this amount from the Court where this suit is pending. Instead of moving application either before Deputy Commissioner or Block Development and Panchayat Officer, they have chosen to file this writ petition. Considering the facts and circumstances of the cases, the writ clearly is not maintainable. The petitioners have placed on record certain documents today which would indicate that they have represented to the Deputy Commissioner on 21.1.2009. This was the date when on the request of petitioners' counsel, adjournment was granted and so the writ petition is being heard today. A representation dated 21.1.2009 has apparently been filed to make base for seeking directions for Deputy Commissioner. This, thus, would not call for any direction to Deputy Commissioner. I am, thus, not inclined to interfere in the writ petition and would dismiss the same. January 27, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE