C.W.P. No.5167 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.5167 of 1992 Date of Decision : 05.05.2011 Ram Kishan and another …Petitioners Versus The State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI -.- Present: Mr. Naveen Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Shalini Attri, D.A.G., Haryana. Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate for respondent No.4. *** AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed challenging the eviction order passed against the petitioners under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act (for brevity ‘the Act’). C.W.P. No.5167 of 1992 -2- Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that after the amendment of the Act by Haryana Act 2 of 1981 this land would not be included within the definition of Shamlat Deh and the Courts below could not cover this aspect. He has further argued that Shamlat Deh lands fall within caluse (vi) of Section 2(g) of the Act. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 has argued that as the amendment of the Act was carried out in the year 1981 the petitioners would get protected only if they were shown in possession of the land prior to the amendment of the Act. As per learned counsel for the respondent No.4, for the first time the petitioners were reflected in possession in the year 1982 and even if to prove their claim they submit that they purchased the land from one Mehar Singh it would not help them because Mehar Singh shown to be in possession only w.e.f. kharif 1982. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further countered by arguing that in Annexure P-1 which is the Jamabandi for the year 1979-80 the land had been shown as Gair Mumkin shop, house etc. and therefore it would be ipso facto outside the purview of the definition of Shamlat Deh. In this connection it would be useful to notice that the word used in the Act is not ‘described’ but ‘used’ and thus even after the property was shown to be a house, shop it had to be used by the claimant to earn the benefit. In the present case it is undisputed that the user of the property either of Mehar Singh or his successor-in-interest the C.W.P. No.5167 of 1992 -3- petitioners were reflected in possession in the year 1983. Once the petitioners were not able to show their possession prior to the amendment of the Act 2 of 1981 no fault can be found with the impugned orders. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. ( AJAY TEWARI ) May 05, 2011 JUDGE ashish