IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3944 of 2010 Date of Decision: March 25, 2011 Gurbir Inder Singh & another .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Director, Rural Development and Panchayats Department, Punjab & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Madan Lal Saini, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Sonu Chahal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Umesh Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.3. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This civil writ petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order dated 30.8.2007 (Annexure P-6) and order dated 4.9.2009 (Annexure P-9) passed by the authorities, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 7 of the CWP No.3944 of 2010 [2] Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’). 2. Short contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have been found in unauthorised possession of gram panchayat land and have been ordered to be ejected. Appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel contends that the petitioners have already approached the prescribed authority under Section 11 of the Act. In such circumstances, the petitioners cannot be ejected because question of title is yet to be determined and decided. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.3, Gram Panchayat, has pointed out that the prescribed authority has already dismissed the suit filed by the petitioners under Section 11 of the Act. A finding has been returned that possession of the petitioners is not proved since before 26.1.1950. Jamabandi for the year 1967-68 indicates ownership of the Gram Panchayat over the land. Likewise in the revenue record for the year 1987-88 and 2002-2003, in the column of ownership, Gram Panchayat Deh is recorded. 5. Learned counsel has further pointed out that the petitioners have filed appeal before CWP No.3944 of 2010 [3] the appellate authority. The appellate authority has not granted any stay to the petitioners. 6. In view of the fact that prescribed authority, under Section 11 of the Act, has already adjudicated and decided the issue against the petitioners, no ground for interference is made out. Even the appellate authority has not granted any stay to the petitioners. The proceedings cannot be delayed for indefinite period particularly because the land at issue has been held to be belonging to Gram Panchayat Deh and land is required to be put to use for common purposes. No equitable or legal ground, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, can be pleaded in favour of the petitioners. 7. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) March 25, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?