IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 1904 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 23, 2011 Gurmukh Singh and another. …Appellants Versus Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab and others. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH. Present: Mr. P.K. Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants. Paramjeet Singh, J. The instant Letter Patent Appeal has been filed against order dated 10.08.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants for quashing order dated 13.02.2008 (Annexure P/8) passed by the Collector and order dated 14.02.2011 (Annexure P/10) passed the Commissioner in appeal, dismissing the title suit of the appellants under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and also against order dated 06.10.2006 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Collector, whereby application of the Gram Panchayat under Section 7 of the Act has been allowed and the appeal preferred before the Commissioner by the appellants has been dismissed vide order dated 12.11.2010 (Annexure P/5). The impugned orders have been challenged in the same writ petition. LPA No.1904 of 2011 (O&M) Though this appeal is barred by limitation as along with the appeal, the appellant has filed an application (CM No.5094 of 2011) for condonation of 11 days of delay in filing the appeal, however, without taking the said delay into consideration, we have heard the learned counsel for the appellants on merits and gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the impugned order of learned Single Judge, as well as, the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner. The appellants claimed ownership of land measuring 7 kanals situated in Village Nangal Abiana, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar. The claim of the appellants is that the land does not fall in the definition of “shamlat deh”. In the revenue record, the land has been recorded as “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan Wa Haqdaran Hasab Rasad Rakbha Khewat”. It is the case of the appellants that their ancestors were proprietors and permanent residents of the village. Their possession is continuous since 1966-67 and their names are continuously in the revenue record till 1999. They have also pleaded that the possession is prior to 26.01.1950, therefore, in view of Section 2(g)(5)(viii) of the Act, the land in question does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. All the revenue authorities after considering the claim of the appellants in the light of the evidence led by them, as well as, the Gram Panchayat have recorded findings of fact to the effect that the appellants had failed to prove their possession on the land in dispute on or before 26.01.1950. It is a matter of record that the land has been recorded as “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan Wa 2 LPA No.1904 of 2011 (O&M) Haqdaran Hasab Rasad Rakbha Khewat”. In the cultivation column, name of Khushia Ram son of Sita Ram has been recorded as “Gair Murshi”, in the jamabandi for the year 1966-67 and in the subsequent jamabandies. As per the copies of pattanama from Patta Register, the Gram Panchayat for the year 1981-82, Sham Singh son of Khushia Ram has taken the land on lease for a sum of Rs.200/-. Thereafter, in 1983-84, lessee was Sarwan Singh son of Hakam Singh. The entries in the revenue record are to the effect that the appellants are chakotedar of the Panchayat. A chakotedar cannot claim ownership and cannot challenge the title of his landlord. By taking into consideration the revenue record, the Authorities under the Act have come to the conclusion that the appellants have failed to prove their ownership with regard to the land in dispute. There is no iota of evidence on record from which possession of the appellants or their ancestors could be proved on or before 26.01.1950. As per Section 23-A of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 and Rule 16(ii) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949, the property entered in the name of “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan”, vests for management and control in the Gram Panchayat. In view of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the revenue authorities and affirmed by the learned Single Judge, the appellants are not owners in possession of the land in question. We are not inclined to interfere in the order of the learned Single Judge. The second set of the impugned orders (Annexure P/3 and P/5) had arisen from the petition filed by the Gram Panchayat under 3 LPA No.1904 of 2011 (O&M) Section 7 of the Act, whereby eviction of the appellants has been ordered. Since, the title suit of the appellants stands dismissed, so, the consequential orders for eviction of the appellants are upheld. Thus, in our opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not require any interference in the appeal. No merit. Dismissed in limine. (PARAMJEET SINGH) JUDGE November 23, 2011 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkd JUDGE 4