IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 18284 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION : 28.09.2011 Gurbir Inder Singh and another .... PETITIONERS Versus Director Rural Development and Panchayats Department, Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. M.L. Saini, Advocate, for the petitioners. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) This writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 24.8.2010 (Annexure P-7), passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum- Collector, Roop Nagar, whereby the title suit/petition filed by the petitioners under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') was dismissed; as well as the order dated 7.7.2011 (Annexure P-8), passed by the Commissioner, dismissing the appeal of the petitioners against the aforesaid order. In this case, the dispute is regarding 38 Kanals 1 Marla of land, situated in village Raisran, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Roop Nagar. CWP No. 18284 of 2011 -2- Admittedly, in the revenue record, this land is recorded under the ownership of the Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat filed an eviction application under Section 7 of the Act against the petitioners, alleging that possession of the petitioners on the said land is illegal and unauthorised. It has not been disputed before this Court that the said application of the Gram Panchayat was allowed. The appeal and the writ petition filed by the petitioners challenging the said order have been dismissed. During the pendency of those proceedings under Section 7 of the Act, the petitioners filed a title suit/petition under Section 11 of the Act before the Collector. By the impugned order, the said suit/petition has also been dismissed. The claim of the petitioners in the suit/petition is that they and their predecessor were in possession of the disputed land prior to 26.1.1950, therefore, in view of Section 2 (g) (5) (viii) of the Act, the land in dispute does not fall under the definition of shamilat deh and consequently, it does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. It has been found by both the authorities below that as per the record, the petitioners have failed to prove their individual cultivating possession on the land in dispute since 26.1.1950, therefore, their case does not fall under exception (viii) of Section 2 (g) (5) of the Act. It is the case of the petitioners that they have purchased the disputed land by an agreement in the year 1984, therefore, they should be deemed to be in possession of the land, because their vendors were in possession of the same. Both the authorities below have ignored the said agreement, holding that it cannot be said to be a valid transfer of the land in favour of the petitioners and it does CWP No. 18284 of 2011 -3- not confer any title on them. Undisputedly, in the jamabandi for the year 1967-68, the Gram Panchayat is recorded in ownership of the land in dispute and in the column of cultivation, Diwan Singh and Raju sons of Fattu son of Sughar Singh are recorded. They are not the predecessors of the petitioners. In view of the aforesaid findings of fact, recorded by both the authorities below, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned orders. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE September 28, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) ndj JUDGE