CWP No. 10170 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 10170 of 2006 Date of decision: 4.4.2008. Ramjan and others ...Petitioners Versus District Collector Mewat and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.GAREWAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Kirti Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for respondents 1 and 2. Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate, for respondent 3. K.S.GAREWAL, J. The petitioners claims to be owner in possession of 16 kanals of land. A petition was filed against the petitioners by the Gram Panchayat of the village under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The petitioners had defended that petition by stating that the land was not owned by the Gram Panchayat, entry in the revenue record was wrong, the land was owned by Sham Lal Patti Adhota, the land had never been used for any common purpose, the land did not fall within the definition of shamlat deh and did not vest in the Gram Panchayat. CWP No. 10170 of 2006 2 It was further contended that the petitioners had been in possession of the land in dispute for the last 20 years as proprietors and their possession was not unauthorized. Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Ferozepur Jhirka, on August 31, 2004 ordered ejectment of the petitioners. They were also held liable to pay compensation for unauthorized possession over the land in dispute. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that there was specific finding in favour of the petitioners that they were co-sharers recorded by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) in civil suit entitled Safeda and others Versus Gram Panchayat Khor Shah Chokha decided on September 19, 2005. In this suit, issue 1 was in respect of whether the plaintiffs are in cultivating possession of the land as co-sharer. The learned trial court had found in favour of the petitioners that they were in possession of the land as co-sharers “till their ejectment”. In the relief clause as well, it was stated that the plaintiffs were co-sharers but it was also stated that they can be dispossessed from the suit property in accordance with law. It was further ordered that “without implementing order dated August 31, 2004 they cannot be dispossessed from the suit property, as the order dated August 31, 2004 has not been stayed by the appellate Court.” On the date when the above order was passed by the trial court, the petitioners' appeal was pending. Subsequently, appeal was also dismissed by the Collector, Mewat. It was further ordered that without implementing the order dated August 31, 2004 they cannot be dispossessed from the suit property We are unable to accept the contention of the petitioner that the CWP No. 10170 of 2006 3 petitioners are proprietors of the property in dispute and are entitled to retain possession. The courts below have gone into the detailed question and found that the land was owned by the Gram Panchayat and the petitioners were in wrongful possession of the property and were rightly ordered to be ejected. We find no merit in the petition. Dismissed. (K.S. GAREWAL) JUDGE 4.4.2008 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) prem JUDGE