IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14635 of 2009 Date of Decision: March 31, 2011 Kaushal Kumar Jindal .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. R.L. Batta, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Mandeep K. Sajjan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. B.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Mr. J.S. Bhandohal, Advocate, for respondent No.5. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order dated 29.6.2009 (Annexure P-11) passed by respondent No.2 i.e. Director, Rural Development & Panchayat CWP No.14635 of 2009 [2] Department, Punjab (exercising the powers of Commissioner). 2. Vide the impugned order, lease in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that signatures of Block Development & Panchayat Officer do not find mention in the auction proceedings. 3. During the course of proceedings, Gram Panchayat made a proposal that lease in favour of the petitioner is for 7 years w.e.f. 5.9.2006. Approximately 2 years are yet to go. The Gram Panchayat is ready and willing to accept ` 5 lac per year from the petitioner as lease money for the remaining period. Lease money has already been paid till September 2011. Lease money from September 2011 till 2013 is yet to be paid. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from his client, states that so as to avoid further litigation and complications, petitioner would pay the amount as proposed on behalf of the Gram Panchayat. 5. Learned counsel for the official respondent (Nos.1 to 3) contends that if the Panchayat is agreeable to accept ` 5 lac per year for the remaining 2 years as lease money which is substantially more than the amount fixed under CWP No.14635 of 2009 [3] auction proceedings, State agency, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, would have no objection. 6. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of. 7. Petitioner would be required to pay lease money @ ` 5 lac per year for the remaining two years. It is made clear that there shall be no per year increase in the lease amount. It is also made clear that the other terms and conditions of lease shall remain the same. (AJAI LAMBA) March 31, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?