IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. 12042 of 2010 Date of Decision: November 29, 2011 Malwinder Kaur and others. ….Petitioners Versus Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab and others. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH. Present: Mr. Sarjit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jasdev Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Manohar Lall, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Mr. Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.3. **** Paramjeet Singh, J. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of order dated 03.09.2007 (Annexure P/11) passed by the Collector, whereby the petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been allowed and the petitioners have been ordered to be evicted and order dated 13.02.2009 (Annexure P/12) passed by the Commissioner, whereby appeal of petitioner No.1 – Malwinder Kaur has been dismissed. CWP No. 12042 of 2010 The brief facts of the case are that the Gram Panchayat filed a petition under Section 7 of the Act for eviction of the petitioner from the shamlat deh/Nagar Panchayat land measuring 114 kanals 14 Marlas situated in the revenue estate of Village Nanansu, Tehsil and District Patiala, which stand vested in the Gram Panchayat and had been given on lease to the petitioners. The petitioners had not handed over the possession after expiry of lease, as such, they are in illegal possession without any right. It has been specifically mentioned in the petition under Section 7 of the Act that earlier the entry in the revenue record in the ownership column was “Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Zare Khewat” and in the cultivation column, it was mentioned as “Makbuja Malkan”. In the year 1956-57 mutation was sanctioned in the name of the Gram Panchayat and it has never been challenged, since then, it has been carried out in the subsequent jamabandies. The petitioners filed reply to the said application alleging that the land does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. Mutation has been wrongly sanctioned and has no effect on the rights of the petitioners in the eyes of law. The land is described as “Banjar Kadim” and has never been used for common purposes. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. In the jamabandi for the year 2000-01, the Gram Panchayat is the owner and the petitioner has been shown as a lessee. It is the case of the Gram Panchayat that lease was for one year and thereafter, the petitioner had not handed over the possession. After the expiry of lease possession of the lessee becomes illegal and unauthorized. The lessee is bound to hand over 2 CWP No. 12042 of 2010 the possession to the Gram Panchayat as he has no right to continue in possession after expiry of lease. It is the admitted fact that in this case, the petitioners had filed a petition under Section 11 of the Act which was dismissed vide order dated 05.10.2009 (Annexure R-1) by the Collector and the appeal preferred against this order as stated by the learned counsel for respondent No.3, has also been dismissed by the learned Commissioner on 16.02.2011. It would be appropriate to mention here that earlier a Civil Writ Petition No. 13836 of 2006 titled “Devinder Singh and others vs. Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab and others, has been filed, which has been disposed of vide order dated 12.11.2008 (Annexure P/10) in terms of order passed in C.W.P. No. 10003 of 2005, decided on 12.11.2008, wherein direction was issued to decide the application under Section 11 of the Act within a specified period. Now, application under Section 11 of the Act stands decided and appeal against that also stands dismissed. The concurrent findings of fact have recorded by the Collector, as well as the Commissioner that petitioners are gair marusi. The petitioners had been taking the land on lease from 1983-84 to 1997-98 and had signed the lease register. The lessee can not challenge the title of the landlord. The petitioners have failed to prove his possession prior to 26.01.1950, as such, he cannot claim any right to remain on the land in question. In the present case, even the title suit of the petitioners have been dismissed and the Gram Panchayat has been held to be the owner. In view of the above, the present writ petition is devoid of merit. 3 CWP No. 12042 of 2010 Dismissed. (PARAMJEET SINGH) JUDGE November 29, 2011 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkd JUDGE 4