IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.10898 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : MAY 05, 2011 SARUP SINGH & ANR. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS DIRECTOR, RURAL DEVELOPMENT & PANCHAYAT DEPARTMENT, PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. SS Swaich, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr. Gurinderjit Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.3. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 Costs have been deposited. 2 This petition prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing orders dated 10.5.2006 and 4.2.2009, Annexures P-3 and P-4, passed by the Prescribed Authority under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as applicable to Punjab, and by the appellate authority, respectively. 3 Gram Panchayat/Gram Sabha, Village Khanpur Khurd, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), with the plea that land comprised in khasra No.34//10, measuring 1 kanal 11 marlas, is in the ownership of 2 Panchayat. The demarcation of the land has been done. The petitioners are in unauthorised possession of the land. The land was reserved for common purposes and, therefore, the petitioners be ejected therefrom. The petitioners took the plea that old houses have been built on the land, 50/60 years back, and therefore, the land has become the ownership of the petitioners. Though, it was pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that the said land was carved out from land holding of Khewatdars of the village at the time of consolidation, by imposing pro-rata cut on the proprietary land of the Khewatdars and entry in column of ownership in revenue record was made, however, I find that the consolidation scheme was not placed on record by the petitioners. 4 Collector, vide order (Annexure P-3), has concluded that the land in dispute is in the ownership of Nagar Panchayat, as per Jamabandi for the year 1997-98. It was used for common purposes of the village. Houses and Baras of the petitioners are existing and they are using it as residences. In view of the existence of houses, it was directed that the Gram Panchayat shall get Collector's rate of land assessed and receive the value so assessed from the petitioners. 5 Vide order (Annexure P-4), the appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed by the Commissioner, while concluding that as per Jamabandi for the year 1962-63, land was shown as Gair Mumkin pond. As per Jamabandis for the years 1997-98 and 2002-03 also, the land has been shown as Gair Mumkin Pond. In the said Jamabandis, Nagar Panchayat 3 Deh has been shown in the column of ownership. The Sarpanch had made a statement before the Prescribed Authority that the houses of the petitioners have been in existence since long, which was beyond his jurisdiction and, therefore, he be proceeded against, as the land has been throughout shown as a pond in the revenue record. 6 I have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners to the effect that the houses of the petitioners have been in existence, which fact has been admitted by the Sarpanch and, therefore, the petitioners cannot be ejected. The contention, however, cannot be accepted in view of Jamabandis for the years 1962-63, 1987-88, 2002-03 and 2007-08, placed on record with the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.3, as Annexures R-3/1, R-3/2, R-3/3 and R-3/4, respectively, which consistently indicate that the land was Gair Mumkin Pond (Tobha). 7 Merely because some resident of the village takes the land in illegal occupation and constructs a house, would not mean that the land would devolve under his ownership. 8 In view of the above, no ground for interference in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction, in facts or in law, is made out. 9 The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. May 05, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?