CWP-17570-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Gurjit Singh and another Joint Development Commissioner CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. for the petitioner. Mr. Shekhar Verma, Mr. Umesh Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.8 DEEPAK SIBAL Learned counsel for the petitioners without a decision on the petitioners’ petition Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Land (for short, 1961 Act) petitioners along with their afore petition, possession, with regard to the prope afore petition could and should not have been issued. 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 Section 11 of the 1961 Act is pending, 2025 (O&M) Sr. No.150 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-17570 Date of Decision : and another 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., Punjab. Mr. Umesh Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.8-Gram Panchayat. *** DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioners without a decision on the petitioners’ petition Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Land (for short, 1961 Act) or at least their application for stay petitioners along with their afore petition, with regard to the property which is the subject matter of the afore petition 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’s petition under Section 11 of the 1961 Act is pending, IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 17570-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 01.07.2025 …Petitioners and others …Respondents DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI , Advocate, Additional A.G., Punjab. Gram Panchayat. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia submits that without a decision on the petitioners’ petition, filed by them under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 or at least their application for stay filed by the petitioners along with their afore petition, the impugned warrants of which is the subject matter of the afore petition could 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 petition under Section 11 of the 1961 Act is pending, takes a final VANDANA 2025.07.04 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-17570-2025 decision on the petitioners’ prayer for s possession from 3. The afore fair stand counsel for the petitioners 4. Disposed of. July 01, 2025 vandana Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : 2025 (O&M) decision on the petitioners’ prayer for stay, the petitioners’ from the disputed property shall not be interfered with. The afore fair stand taken by the State satisfies counsel for the petitioners. Disposed of. (DEEPAK SIBAL JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE 5 Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No the petitioners’ the disputed property shall not be interfered with. taken by the State satisfies learned DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No VANDANA 2025.07.04 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document