IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 18610 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION : 03.10.2011 Bahadur Singh .... PETITIONER Versus The Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Mr. M.L. Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders dated 12.7.2006 (Annexure P-1); 31.10.2006 (Annexure P-2) and 13.5.2011 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Mohindergarh; Collector, Mohindergarh; and the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon. On an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), filed by respondent No.4 Shri Chand, a resident of the village of the petitioner, the petitioner was ordered to be evicted from 55 square yards of land, out of khasra No. 207/1 measuring 4 kanals 8 marlas. According to the CWP No. 18610 of 2011 -2- revenue record, the said khasra number vests in the Gram Panchayat and is being used as Gair Mumkin Goradeh, which admittedly is a common purpose. The said order of eviction was passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, on the basis of the demarcation report, which was upheld in appeal as well as in revision. It is undisputed position that during pendency of the appeal, the disputed land was again demarcated and in the said demarcation also, the petitioner was found to be in illegal possession of the aforesaid 55 square yards of land. In view of the finding of facts recorded by both the courts below on the basis of two demarcation reports, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned orders. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to approach the competent authority to purchase the aforesaid disputed land as per the provisions of the Act. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to apply for purchase of the aforesaid disputed land, if permissible under the law. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE October 03, 2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) ndj JUDGE