IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.9646 of 2010 Date of Decision: March 21, 2011 Hazari Lal & others .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. V.K. Sandhir, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. C.L. Premy, Advocate, for respondent No.3. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This civil writ petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order dated 24.2.2009 (Annexure P-3) passed by Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development & Panchayats, Patiala (exercising the powers of Collector); and Order dated 5.3.2010 (Annexure P-5) passed by the CWP No.9646 of 2010 [2] appellate authority viz. Commissioner. 2. Vide Order Annexure P-3, the petitioners have been ordered to be ejected under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’), as applicable to Punjab. Vide Order Annexure P-5, the appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 has drawn the attention of the Court towards Annexure R-3/11 dated 24.2.2009. 4. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel. 5. Annexure R-3/11 is an order passed on a petition filed by the petitioners under Section 11 of the Act. The petitioners claimed continuous possession since 1929-30 with the plea that land is not Shamilat Deh and Gram Panchayat is not concerned with it. The prescribed authority held that Nagar Panchayat has been shown to be the owner of the land. Out of the petitioners, the name of Atma Ram, for the first time, figured in half share in Khasra No.26/2 (8-0), 9 (8-0) in jamabandi for the year 1961-62. There is not even a single entry in the name of the petitioners in any of the jamabandi prior to this. It has been noticed that application CWP No.9646 of 2010 [3] against the petitioners under Section 7 of the Act has been dismissed. 6. Considering the broader issue that the orders passed under Section 7 of the Act have been challenged in this Court whereas the petition under Section 11 of the Act filed by the petitioners has already been dismissed, no indulgence in this petition is called for. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not even have instructions as to whether order, Annexure R-3/11 has been challenged or not. 8. No ground for interference in extraordinary writ jurisdiction is made out. 9. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) March 21, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?