CWP No.19462 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.19462 of 2009 Date of decision:30.08.2010 Kulwant Singh and another ...... Petitioners VERSUS The State of Punjab through its Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab, Chandigarh and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA. Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms.Prachi Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.C.S.Brar, DAG, Punjab for respondent no.1. Mr.R.K.Garg, Advocate for respondent no.2. ***** RAJIVE BHALLA.J (Oral) Reply filed on behalf of respondent no.2 in court today is taken on record. The short prayer made by counsel for the petitioners is that their dispossession should be stayed during pendency of their appeal before the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab, Chandigarh, exercising the powers of Commissioner, under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. Counsel for the Gram Panchayat submits that as the petitioners are unauthorised occupants of Panchayat property the mere pendency of their appeal does not entitle them to a stay of their dispossession. The Commissioner, therefore, rightly declined to stay their dispossession. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and am satisfied that as a first appeal was pending before the Director, he CWP No.19462 of 2009 -2- should have, particularly in view of their admitted possession, granted interim relief, as prayed for. The Director, disregarded the petitioners admitted possession and the fact that the order of ejectment was under challenge before him, in a first appeal. The necessity to deal with unauthorised occupants, firmly, can not be over-emphasised but it is equally important that where a first appeal is admitted for hearing, dispossession should generally be stayed as otherwise the very purpose of providing a forum of appeal may be frustrated. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed, the order dated 23.11.2009 is set aside. During the pendency of the appeal, before the Director Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab, Chandigarh, dispossession of the petitioners shall remain stayed. The appeal be decided within three months. This order shall not be construed to be a direction that dispossession has to be stayed in every case. 30.08.2010 [RAJIVE BHALLA] shamsher JUDGE