IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM Nos.19143-44 of 2009 and CWP No.16837 of 2009 Date of decision : 26.11.2009 Subhkaran Singh and another …. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and Others …. Respondents Present : Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, Advocate for the applicants/petitioners. *** S.S. SARON, J. CM Nos.19143-44 of 2009 The Khasra Girdawaris from Kharif 1949 to Rabi 1951 (Annexure P7), from Kharif 1951 to Rabi 1956 (Annexure P8), from Kharif 1956 to Rabi 1960 (Annexure P9), from Rabi 1974 to Rabi 1978 (Annexure P10), from Kharif 1978 to Rabi 1983 (Annexure P11), Jamabandi for the year 1997-98 (Annexure P12) and the Jamabandi for the year 2002-03 (Annexure P13) attached with the C.M. applications are taken on record subject to just exceptions. C.M. applications stand disposed of. CWP No.16837 of 2009 Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the petitioners and his predecessors-in-interest are in possession of land measuring 2 kanals 16 marlas comprised in khasra No.1182. A reference has been made to the Khasra Girdawaris Annexures P7 CM Nos.19143-44 of 2009 and [2] CWP No.16837 of 2009 to P11 and also the Jamabandis for the years 1997-98 (Annexure P12) and 2002-03 (Annexure P13). It is submitted that the Gram Panchayat earlier filed three petitions i.e. petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (“Act” – for short) which was dismissed vide order dated 19.2.1985 (Annexure P1), the second petition under Section 11 of the Act was dismissed on 1.6.1990 (Annexure P2) and the third petition was filed under Sections 5 and 7 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 which was dismissed on 10.3.1997 (Annexure P3). Now, Gurdial Singh (respondent No.5) has filed a petition (Annexure P4) under Section 11 of the Act. The petitioners filed their reply (Annexure P5) to the said petition. It is prayed that a direction be issued to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur exercising the powers of Collector, Gurdaspur (respondent No.3) under the Act to decide the case on the principle of res-judicata in the first instance. Besides, directing the respondents to consider and decide the application dated 24.5.2007 (Annexure P4) filed by Gurdial Singh (respondent No.5) after taking into consideration the abovesaid orders dated 19.2.1985 (Annexure P1), 1.6.1990 (Annexure P2) and 10.3.1997 (Annexure P3). A further prayer has been made for quashing the application dated 24.5.2007 (Annexure P4) filed by Gurdial Singh (respondent No.5) seeking eviction of the petitioners. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, the contentions as regards the principle of res judicata as also the maintainability of the application dated 24.5.2007 (Annexure P4) filed by Gurdial Singh (respondent No.5) are to be raised before the CM Nos.19143-44 of 2009 and [3] CWP No.16837 of 2009 Collector, Gurdaspur who is seized of the case and this court at an such stage when a matter is pending consideration before a Court of competent jurisdiction is not normally to interfere in proceedings pending under Section 11 of the Act filed by Gurdial Singh (respondent No.5). The petitioners may, therefore, raise their pleas as have been raised herein before the Collector, Gurdaspur where the petition (Annexure P4) is pending. It is needless to mention that in case such a plea is raised, the same shall be duly considered by the Collector, Gurdaspur in accordance with law. The writ petition is, therefore, premature and is accordingly dismissed. (S.S. SARON) November 26, 2009 JUDGE amit