C.W.P. No. 13794 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 13794 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 28.11.2011 Nirmal Singh .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present:- Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manohar Lall, Addl. AG Punjab for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for respondent No. 3. **** SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J(Oral). The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 20.7.2007 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Collector whereby the title suit filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 has been dismissed as well as the order dated 6.2.2009 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Commissioner whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. In this writ petition the dispute is about 37 kanals 9 marlas of land situated in the area of village Dhiarpur, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, Block Nurpur Bedi, District Rupnagar. The petitioner claims that he is owner of this land as his father has developed this land and made it fit for cultivation C.W.P. No. 13794 of 2009 2 and the petitioner and his father were in possession of this land for the last about 60 years. On the other hand, the stand of the Gram Panchayat is that the land in dispute vests in the Gram Panchayat and as per revenue record, land in dispute is owned by Gram Panchayat. It is further the case of the respondents that in the year 1983-84 the petitioner took this land on lease and thereafter did not vacated it. Consequently, the Gram Panchayat filed an application under Section 7 of the Act, for his ejectment from the land in question. The said application was allowed and the petitioner was ordered to be evicted from the land in dispute. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order has also been dismissed. The Collector after coming to the conclusion that as per the revenue record i.e. jamabandis' for the year 1983-84, 1993-94, 1998-99 as well as khasra Girdawri pertaining to the year 1999-2000, the petitioner was Chakotedar of the land in dispute. Therefore, being Chakotedar, he cannot question the title of his landlord. The Collector has also referred to Civil Suit filed by the petitioner in which he claims himself to be lessee of the Gram Panchayat. The said suit was dismissed by the Civil Court and the judgment and decree has also been upheld by this Court in Regular Second Appeal. During the course of arguments learned counsel for petitioner does not dispute the fact that in the Civil Suit the petitioner has admitted that he was Chakotedar of the Gram Panchayat. It is the case of the petitioner that the said admission made by the petitioner is not binding on him being made by mistake. No such plea was taken by the petitioner before the Collector. Learned counsel for the petitioner also could not controvert the revenue entries as mentioned above, indicating that the C.W.P. No. 13794 of 2009 3 petitioner was a Chakotedar of the Gram Panchayat. In view of these facts, in our opinion, the authorities under the Act have rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner being a Chakotedar is not entitled to challenge the ownership of his landlord (Gram Panchayat). The reference can be made to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Kuldip Singh and others Vs. Gram Panchayat, Pehar Kalan, Tehsil Rajpura and others, 2005 (4) RCR (Civil) 93 (D.B.). Thus, We do not find any illegality in the orders passed by both the authorities whereby the title suit filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. No merit. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE 28.11.2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) reema JUDGE