IN THE HIGH C Sr. No. 115 Mukhtiar Singh State of Punjab and CORAM : HON'B HON'B Present : Mr. S. Mr. Ku DEEPAK SIBAL, J 1. Learne has filed before re Village Common L declaration of the G head note of such petition as he along from one Savitri D abuse of the proce owners of the lan respondent No. 2 respondent No. 2, w the matter. 2. In the petitioner seeks iss IGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYAN Versus ab and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BA S. S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the petit Kuljit Singh, Addl. A. G., Punjab. * * * * * AL, J. (Oral) earned counsel for the petitioner su ore respondent No. 2 a petition und mon Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 ( f the Gram Panchayat to be the owner such petition; the petitioner is respo alongwith other co-owners had purch vitri Devi; the aforesaid petition filed process of law and therefore, the pe e land in question, on 19.03.2025 (Annexure P-14) seeking outrig o. 2, without even considering such ap n the light of the afore submission ks issuance of a direction to respond RYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-33369-2025 Date of decision : 22.01.2026 .…. Petitioner ..... Respondents AK SIBAL A BANERJI e petitioner. unjab. ner submits that respondent No. 4 under Section 11 of the Punjab 1961 (for short, the 1961 Act) for owner of the land mentioned in the respondent No. 5 in the aforesaid purchased the property in question n filed by respondent No. 4 is an the petitioner, alongwith other co- .2025 filed an application before outright dismissal of the same but uch application, is proceeding with missions, learned counsel for the spondent No. 2 to first decide the SHAMSHER SINGH 2026.01.28 11:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh CWP-33369-2025 issue of maintainab 11 of the 1961 Act but also would be petitioner the issue stands settled by thi 3. Learne afore prayer made o 4. After c perusing the record petitioner to be reas to respondent No. filed by respondent application filed by P-14). The needfu opportunity of heari 5. If resp would be at libert application. 22.01.2026 shamsher [ 2 ] tainability of the petition filed by res 1 Act as adoption of such a course wo ld be in the interest of justice espec issue raised through the petition filed by this Court. earned State counsel has no object ade on the petitioner’s behalf. fter considering the afore rival subm record of the case, we find the pra be reasonable and therefore, dispose of t No. 2 to first decide the issue of m ondent No. 4 under Section 11 of the led by the petitioner and other co-ow eedful be done within six weeks but f hearing to all affected parties and in f respondent No. 4 is aggrieved by t liberty to approach this Court throu Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No respondent No. 4 under Section rse would not only save public time especially when according to the n filed by respondent No. 4 already objection to the acceptance of the l submissions made before us and the prayer made on behalf of the ose of this petition with a direction e of maintainability of the petition of the 1961 Act by considering the owners on 19.03.2025 (Annexure ks but only after granting adequate nd in accordance with law. d by the passing of this order, he ough filing of an appropriate [DEEPAK SIBAL] JUDGE [LAPITA BANERJI] JUDGE s / No s / No SHAMSHER SINGH 2026.01.28 11:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh