IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.6063 of 2011 Date of Decision: April 05, 2011 Gian Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Gurnam Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order dated 27.5.2004 (Annexure P-8) and Order dated 6.9.2006 (Annexure P-10). 2. Order Annexure P-8 has been passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner –cum- Collector, Kapurthala, on a petition filed at the instance of the petitioner, under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, CWP No.6063 of 2011 [2] 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’), as applicable to Punjab. 3. The petitioner claiming title over the land, filed a petition. The prescribed authority under the Act, after taking into account the entire relevant record, has held that the petitioner is in unauthorised possession over the land. Petitioner has not been able to prove that he is a share holder in the land. It has further been held that the petitioner was not in possession of land from 1947 to 1950. The petitioner could not bring any evidence before the authority to show that he or his fore-fathers were proprietors. To the contrary, Gram Panchayat has been able to prove that the petitioner had taken the disputed land on lease. After completion of the period of lease, the petitioner did not vacate the possession over the disputed land and thereafter, has been in unauthorised possession of the land. The Gram Panchayat manages the land. 4. Petitioner carried an appeal that has been dismissed vide the other impugned order, Annexure P-10. The appellate authority has held that original Khewatdars of the village have migrated to Pakistan at the time of partition. The petitioner merely settled in the village and CWP No.6063 of 2011 [3] does not own any land by way of allotment or otherwise to prove the title or ownership over the suit land. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to dispute that indeed the petitioner migrated after partition. 6. I have taken note of the fact that impugned order, Annexure P-10, was passed in September 2006. There has been a delay of 4½ years and therefore, the petition also suffers from delay and laches. 7. No ground for interference in extraordinary writ jurisdiction is made out. 8. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) April 05, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?