In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... C.W.P. No.10104 of 2008 ..... Date of decision:11.11.2009 Zile Singh and another .....Petitioners v. State of Haryana and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sudhir Makkar, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondents No.1 to 3. None for respondent No.4. ..... S.S. Saron, J. The petitioners seek setting aside the order dated 16.5.2008 (Annexure-P.5) passed by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Madloda, District Panipat (respondent No.3) as also for setting aside the order dated 31.3.2008 (Annexure-P.3) passed by the Collector, Panipat (respondent No.2) and for restraining the respondents from leasing out the `Johar' (pond) land for the purpose of fishery and the land in dispute is `Jumla Mushtarka Malkan' and belongs to specific Panna and Thola. The said land was reserved for the particular Panna for their own use i.e. for the purpose of `Johar' (pond) by their predecessors-in- interest for drinking water for cattle, washing clothes by inhabitants of the village and the petitioners even have installed tube-wells for filling water in the said pond. Therefore, according to the petitioners the said land would C.W.P. No.10104 of 2008 [2] not fall within the definition of `Shamilat Deh' in view of the provisions of Section 2(g)(v) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (`Act' – for short). After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it may be noticed that against the impugned order dated 31.3.2008 (Annexure P3) passed by the Collector, Panipat (respondent No.2), the petitioners have filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak along with an application (Annexure-P.4) for stay of the said order. The same is now fixed before the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak for disposal in the month of November 2009. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are using the land as `Johar'. However, their grievance is that it should not be leased out for fishery as the purpose for which the land has been reserved would be defeated. Keeping in view the fact that the matter is pending before the learned Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, it would be inappropriate for this Court at this stage to go into the aspect as regards fact as to whether the land can be given on lease by the Gram Panchayat, Village Kalkha, Tehsil Madloda, District Panipat (respondent No.4). This aspect is to be considered by the learned Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak in the appeal pending before him. In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed being premature. November 11, 2009. (S.S. Saron) *hsp*/amit Judge NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes/No