IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 2274 of 2011 ( O&M ) DATE OF DECISION : 14.12.2011 Harjinder Singh .... APPELLANT Versus Director, Rural Development and Panchayats Department, Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. N.P.S. Mann, Advocate, for the appellant. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. Harjinder Singh has directed this Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 27.4.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No. 7214 of 2011) filed by the appellant, challenging the orders dated 20.11.2007 and 26.11.2010 (Annexures P-10 and P-12), passed by the Collector and the Commissioner, respectively, dismissing the title suit of the petitioner under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'); as well as the appeal, has been dismissed. Though there is delay of 185 days in filing this appeal and the appellant has filed an application (CM No. 6154 of 2011) for condoning LPA No. 2274 of 2011 -2- the delay, but we have heard learned counsel for the appellant on merits, and gone through the impugned order, as well as the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner. A perusal of the impugned order, passed by the learned Single Judge, reveals that the appellant has not disputed the finding of fact to the effect that in the revenue record from 1952-53 till the year 2002-03, he was not shown to be in possession of the land in question. It has also not been disputed by the appellant that in the revenue record for the years 1989-90, 1994-95 and 1999-2000, his predecessor-in-interest has been shown as lessee of the Gram Panchayat on the land in dispute. In view of the aforesaid undisputed factual position in the revenue record, the authorities below as well as the learned Single Judge have held that the appellant has failed to prove his individual cultivating possession on the land in dispute since 26.1.1950. Therefore, the case of the appellant is not covered by Exception (viii) of Section 2 (g) (5) of the Act. Hence, the appellant was rightly not declared owner of the land in dispute, which according to the definition of Section 2 (g) vests in the Gram Panchayat. The other factor, which goes against the appellant is that he and his predecessor have been recorded in possession of the disputed land as lessee of the Gram Panchayat. In support of this fact, the Gram Panchayat has also produced on record the lease register showing the father of the appellant as lessee on the land of the Gram Panchayat. Since the predecessor of the appellant has taken the land on lease from the Gram LPA No. 2274 of 2011 -3- Panchayat, he and his successor are not entitled to challenge the title of their landlord. It is well established, as has been held by this Court in Kuldip Singh and others Versus Gram Panchayat, Pehar Kalan, Tehsil Rajpura and others, 2005 (3) PLR 734 that if a person has taken the land on lease from the Gram Panchayat, subsequently he cannot challenge the title of the Gram Panchayat by filing the title suit under Section 11 of the Act. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal position, we do not find any illegality in the order, passed by the learned Single Judge. No merit. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE December 14, 2011 ( MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR ) ndj JUDGE