IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 1438 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 22, 2011 Gram Panchayat, Nalini. …Appellant Versus Joint Director, Panchayat, Punjab and others. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH. Present: Mr. Hardip Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Paramjeet Singh, J. This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against judgment dated 29.10.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby order dated 21.05.1985 (Annexure P/5) passed by the Collector on the application of the Gram Panchayat under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as well as order of the Commissioner dated 19.12.1986 (Annexure P/6) have been confirmed. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned order, as well as, orders of the Collector and the Commissioner. LPA No. 1438 of 2011 The Collector and the Commissioner have recorded a finding of fact that respondent Nos. 3 and 4, sons of Surjan Singh (since deceased) are owners in possession of the land sold to Anup Singh in 1988 BK (more than 50 years ago). It has also been held that according to pro-rata share, the respondents are entitled to 10 Bighas of land out of that land and the respondents are entitled to retain 10 bighas 5 biswas as per jamabandi for the year 1951-52. During the consolidation, old land has been allotted as per evaluation over which the respondents are in continuous possession prior to 26.01.1950. The learned Collector has recorded that “After scrutinizing the record and hearing the arguments of the counsels for the parties, I have arrived at a conclusion that respondent has been in continuous possession of land in dispute, except Khasra No. 64 Min measuring 5 Marlas for 12 years immediately preceding the commencement of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. Hence, I order eviction of the respondent from land comprised in Khasra No. 64 Min 5 Marlas. The petition is dismissed with regard to rest of the land.” This finding was affirmed by the Commissioner and thereafter, by the learned Single Judge. In accordance with the provisions of Section 4(3)(ii) of the Act, the possession over the land in dispute is established excepting the Khasra No. 64 min (5-0), therefore, the Commissioner has recorded a finding that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 cannot be evicted from 28 kanals of the land. Since the findings of fact, after appreciation of the revenue record had been recorded by the Collector and the Commissioner, thereafter, affirmed by the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that order of the learned Single Judge does not call 2 LPA No. 1438 of 2011 for any interference. The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed in limine. ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) JUDGE November 22, 2011 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkd JUDGE 3