IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1404 of 2010 Date of Decision: April 20, 2011 Isher Singh & others .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Anil Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. B.S. Sidhu, Advocate, with Ms. Manpreet Kaur, Advocate, for respondent No.5. None for respondent Nos.4 and 6. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This petition has been filed praying for quashing Order dated 15.1.2010 (Annexure P-14) passed by respondent No.2, Director –cum- Special Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayats, Punjab, whereby interim CWP No.1404 of 2010 [2] stay granted by District Development & Panchayat Officer has been vacated. 2. Perusal of order, Annexure P-14, indicates that respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed an appeal against the order dated 22.12.2009 (Annexure P-12) passed by Collector –cum- District Development & Panchayat Officer, Patiala. 3. Order dated 22.12.2009 (Annexure P-12) reads as under:- “Case has been presented today on 22.12.2009 through Sh. Dehla Advocate. Heard. In the disputed land, in the column of ownership this land has been shown as Jumla Mustarka Malkan and in the column of cultivation this land has been shown as Gair Mumkin Adda Larian. As such notice be issued to respondents for 13.01.2010. Respondent No.1 Amandeep Singh son of Surinder Singh is hereby restrained from raising any type of construction or filling the earth on the disputed and, till further orders.” 4. Vide impugned order dated 15.1.2010 (Annexure P-14), order Annexure P-12 as extracted above, has been stayed. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 contends that the appeal itself has been decided and therefore, the case has been rendered infructuous. Copy of the order dated 19.4.2010 passed by the appellate authority has been placed on record as Annexure R-5/1. 6. The appellate authority viz. Commissioner, vide Order dated 19.4.2010 (Annexure R-5/1) has held that “...... the land CWP No.1404 of 2010 [3] has been described as the ownership of Mustarka Malkan, so this case should be decided under Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act. Therefore the disputed orders are dismissed and the Collector is ordered to decide the case within three months under the above Act. Parties are directed to appear before Collector on 23-08-2010”. 7. It has been pointed out that now the prescribed authority under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act, 1959 (for short, ‘the Act’) is going to deal with the case. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there is a reasonable apprehension that nature of land would be changed. The land meant for Bus Adda and for common purposes would be rendered useless for the Gram Sabha, if the nature of land is changed. 9. Consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, narrated above, indicates that either the petitioners would challenge order Annexure R-5/1 or would contest the case under the Act. Either way, proceedings would be pending. In such circumstances, ends of justice would be met if during the pendency of the proceedings under the Act, nature of land is CWP No.1404 of 2010 [4] retained as it is. 10. The petition is disposed of with direction that nature of land would not be changed while the proceedings are pending before the authorities under the Act. (AJAI LAMBA) April 20, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?