CWP-17574-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Kirpal Singh Joint Development Commissioner CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. for the petitioner. Mr. Shekhar Verma, Additional A.G., Mr. Umesh Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.8 DEEPAK SIBAL Learned counsel for the petitioner adjudicating upon of the Punjab Village Common Land 1961 Act) or at least petition, the impugned warrants of possession property in question, 2. Reacting to the afore submission, learned State counsel appears on advance notice, submits that he has express instructions to state that before the competent authority petition under decision on the petitioner over the disputed property shall not be interfered with. 2025 (O&M) Sr. No.152 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-1757 Date of Decision : Versus Joint Development Commissioner and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Vikas Mehsempuri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Shekhar Verma, Additional A.G., Mr. Umesh Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.8-Gram Panchayat. *** DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner adjudicating upon the petitioner’s petition, filed of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) or at least his application for stay the impugned warrants of possession in question, could and should not have been issued. Reacting to the afore submission, learned State counsel appears on advance notice, submits that he has express instructions to state that before the competent authority before whom the petitioner petition under Section 11 of the 1961 Act is pending, decision on the petitioner’s prayer for stay the disputed property shall not be interfered with. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 17574-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 01.07.2025 …Petitioner and others …Respondents DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI , Advocate, Mr. Shekhar Verma, Additional A.G., Punjab. Gram Panchayat. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before filed by him under Section 11 s (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short, application for stay filed along with his afore the impugned warrants of possession, with regard to the and should not have been issued. Reacting to the afore submission, learned State counsel, who appears on advance notice, submits that he has express instructions to before whom the petitioner’s Section 11 of the 1961 Act is pending, takes a final s prayer for stay, the petitioner’s possession the disputed property shall not be interfered with. VANDANA 2025.07.08 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17574-2025 3. The afore fair stand learned counsel for the petitioner 4. Disposed of. July 01, 2025 vandana Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : 2025 (O&M) The afore fair stand taken on behalf of counsel for the petitioner. Disposed of. (DEEPAK SIBAL JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE 5 Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No on behalf of the State satisfies DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No VANDANA 2025.07.08 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document