C.W.P No. 641 of 1987 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 641 of 1987 (O&M) Date of decision : September 06, 2010 Mohinder Singh, ...... Petitioner, v. Commissioner Ferozepur Division Ferozepur and others, ...... Respondents. *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Gill, DAG Punjab for respondents No.1 and 2. None for respondent No.3. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This writ petition has been filed challenging the eviction orders passed against the petitioner in respect of land measuring 24 kanals situated in village Mari Mustafa, District Faridkot. Respondent No.3 had filed an application for ejectment on the ground that the petitioner was in unauthorized occupation of the land in dispute. The stand of the petitioner was that out of the said 24 kanals of land, he was in possession of 16 kanals as owner on the basis of an C.W.P No. 641 of 1987 (O&M) ::2:: exchange between his father and respondent No.3 and on the remaining 8 kanals of land, he was in possession as a tenant for the last about 25-30 years. The authorities below found that the father of the petitioner had earlier filed a civil suit for declaration with regard to the above mentioned 16 kanals of land on the same basis of exchange and that the said suit had been dismissed by holding that even though the father of the petitioner had taken possession of 16 kanals of land yet he had never given possession of his own corresponding land to respondent No.3. It is not disputed that the civil Court decree has become final. Once the civil suit filed by the father of the petitioner by relying on the exchange was dismissed, it has to be held that at least with regard to this 16 kanals of land, the petitioner was in unauthorized occupation. As regards the remaining 8 kanals of land also, the plea of the petitioner was that he was in possession as a tenant at will. It is not disputed that the Gram Panchayat cannot transfer possession of land for more than one year without the permission of the government and even if a tenant has to be inducted in the Panchayat land it has to be for an yearly tenancy and every year the tenancy rights have to be auctioned. It is relevant to mention here that the petitioner had also taken a plea of adverse possession with regard to the entire land. It is, thus, clear that the petitioner is just seeking to perpetuate his possession over the entire land in dispute. Resultantly, no fault can be found with the impugned orders. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) September 06, 2010. JUDGE `kk' C.W.P No. 641 of 1987 (O&M) ::3::