IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. *** CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1143 OF 2007. DATE OF DECISIION: August 12, 2008 Paramjit Singh and another Vs. State of Haryana and others. *** Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur, Chief Justice; and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant. *** Present: Shri Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners. Shri Rameshwar Malik, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for respondents No.1 to 3. Shri Arvind Singh, Advocate, for respondents 4 and 5. *** T.S. Thakur, CJ (Oral) The grievance in this petition which purports to have been filed in Public Interest, relates to the grant of a lease for a period of five years in favour of respondent No.5 for running a brick kiln in Village Maggarpur. It is not in dispute that some other inhabitants of the very same village had approached the Assistant Collector under Section 10-A of the Punjab Village Common Land and Regulation Act, 1961 (for brevity hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). It is also not in dispute that an application for interim stay filed in the said proceedings was dismissed, against which the aggrieved villagers had filed an appeal before the Collector which also failed and has since been dismissed. The petitioners, who are also aggrieved of the grant of the lease in question, are agreeable to the disposal of this petition with a direction to the Assistant Collector to expedite the disposal of the proceedings pending before him. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that the application under Section 10-A of the Act was filed as early as on October 23, 2006. A representation -2- CWP NO.1143 OF 2007. filed before the Assistant Collector for an early disposal of the case has evoked no response from him. In the circumstances, therefore, and keeping in view the fact that a section of the Village inhabitants are already before the Assistant Collector in proceedings under Section 10-A of the Act, we do not consider it necessary to interfere with the lease in question at this stage. All that we need mention is that since the proceedings under Section 10-A of the Act are pending for the last over two years, the Assistant Collector ought to dispose of the same expeditiously. The petitioners are in that regard free to move the Assistant Collector for an expeditious disposal of the proceedings before it. In case such an application is moved, the Assistant Collector shall examine the same and pass appropriate orders on the application under Section 10-A of the Act, expeditiously, but not later than six months from the date the application is moved by the petitioners. With the above observation, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to seek such redress as may be permissible under law, in case the disposal of the proceedings under Section 10-A of the Act is not to their satisfaction. No costs. (T.S.THAKUR) CHIEF JUSTICE August 12, 2008 (SURYA KANT) JUDGE Malik