L.P.A. No.1721 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No.1721 of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 Kharinder Jeet Singh .....APPELLANT Versus Director, Rural Development and Panchayats Department, Punjab and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR --- Present: Mr. N.P.S. Mann, Advocate, for the appellant. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the order dated August 26, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No.11872 of 2011) filed by the appellant challenging the orders dated 30.4.2010 and 25.3.2011 passed by the Collector and the Commissioner, respectively, has been dismissed. In the present case, Gram Panchayat of village Chanoli/Bhatoli (respondent No.3) filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Village Common Lands Act') before respondent No.2 for evicting the appellant being in illegal and unauthorised possession of the land comprising in Khewat/Khatauni No.356/389, Khasra No.17//19 (8-0), L.P.A. No.1721 of 2011 (O&M) -2- 17//20 (8-0), total measuring 16 Kanals 0 Marlas, which, as per the revenue record, is owned by the Gram Panchayat. The Collector after providing an opportunity of hearing allowed the said application and passed the order of eviction. The appeal filed by the appellant against the said order was also dismissed by the Commissioner. Feeling aggrieved against the above-said orders, the appellant filed the aforesaid writ petition, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. It is the case of the appellant that he is in continuous possession of the land in dispute since 1950. Therefore, in view of Section 2(g)(5)(viii) of the Village Common Lands Act such land does not fall under the definition of Shamilat Deh and thus not vests in Gram Panchayat. Thus, both the authorities under the Village Common Lands Act without properly appreciating the revenue record, and claim of the appellant, passed the orders of eviction against him. It is conceded position that in the revenue record, i.e., Jamabandis for the years 1986-87, 1991-92 and 2006-07, the disputed land is recorded under the ownership of Panchayat Deh and in its self- cultivation. The nature of the land has been described as Gair Mumkin Dariya (river). No where in the revenue record the name of the appellant is recorded in authorised possession of the disputed land. On the basis of the said revenue record, both the authorities have come to the conclusion that the Panchayat is the owner of the land and the appellant is in illegal and unauthorised possession of the same.Those orders have been upheld by the learned Single Judge. L.P.A. No.1721 of 2011 (O&M) -3- The learned counsel for the appellant advanced only one argument that under Section 7 of the Village Common Lands Act the eviction petition can be filed by the Gram Panchayat only with regard to Shamlat Deh and not with regard to Panchayat Deh. This contention cannot be accepted. There is no dispute that the Panchayat Deh is the property owned, managed and controlled by the Gram Panchayat. It is the duty of the Gram Panchayat to get evicted the unauthorised occupant from such land. The appellant has not placed any document showing his lawful/permissible possession on the disputed land either as a lessee, tenant or licensee on behalf of the Panchayat. His possession is wholly unauthorised and illegal. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that such person cannot resist his eviction on such technical pleas, particularly when the appellant is neither owner of the property nor in permissible/lawful possession of the same. Thus, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. No merits. Dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE September 15, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) vkg JUDGE