IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: December 07, 2011 C.W.P. No. 9511 of 2010 Joginder Singh …. Petitioner Versus Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab and others. …Respondents C.W.P. No. 9512 of 2010 Rachna ….Petitioner Versus Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab and others. …Respondents C.W.P. No. 9514 of 2010 Jangir Singh …. Petitioner Versus Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab and others. …Respondents C.W.P. No. 9516 of 2010 Amarjit Singh …. Petitioner Versus Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab and others. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH. Present: Mr. Mandeep Singh Bedi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arnav Sood, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). CWP No. 9511 of 2010 Mr. Manohar Lall, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. C.L. Premy, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Paramjeet Singh, J. The above mentioned four Civil Writ Petitions bearing CWP No. 9511 of 2010, 9512 of 2010, 9514 of 2010 and 9516 of 2010 have been listed together for hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the facts in CWP No. 9511 of 2010. all the above mentioned four Civil Writ Petitions are disposed of by a common judgment. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of order dated 11.05.2009 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Collector, whereby application of the petitioner under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been dismissed and also quashing of order dated 28.10.2009 (Annexure P/6) passed by the Commissioner affirming the order of the Collector. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed petition under Section 11 of the Act claiming ownership right on the ground that he is in possession of the land measuring 34 bighas 12 biswas situated in Village Dudhar, Tehsil and District Patiala since 1950. The possession of the petitioner is continuous from his forefather. The petitioner has become owner of the property in dispute. The Gram Panchayat submitted its reply and stated that the property in question is ownership of the Nagar Panchayat 2 CWP No. 9511 of 2010 and in the revenue record the possession of the petitioner over the land is without payment of rent and unauthorised. Earlier, the Gram Panchayat had filed application under Section 7 of the Act and the matter came up for hearing before this Court in CWP No. 2769 of 1984 filed by Kartar Singh, father of the present petitioner and direction was issued to decide the title suit of the petitioner in terms of Section 11 read with Rule 12-A of the Act. In pursuance to that, the proceedings under Section 11 of the Act had started. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the possession of the petitioner and his ancestor is continuous prior to 1950 and as such, he is owner of the land in question. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not sustainable because in the jamabandi for the year 1997-98, in the ownership column name of the Gram Panchayat appears and in the cultivation column, name of the petitioner – Joginder Singh appears. In the rent column, the possession of the petitioner has been shown without payment of rent and unauthorized. Same is the position in the jamabandi for the year 2007-08. Admittedly, the revenue record clearly shows that ownership vests in the Gram Panchayat and the possession of the petitioner is unauthorized without payment of rent and prior to 1997-98, the entry in the name of the petitioner does not exist in the revenue record. So, the petitioner has failed to prove his continuous possession prior to 26.01.1950. The said finding recorded by the Collector has also been affirmed by the 3 CWP No. 9511 of 2010 Commissioner. Both the authorities had recorded finding of fact that possession of the petitioner has appeared for the first time in the jamabandi for the year 1997-98, that too without payment of rent and is unauthorized. As such, the petitioner has no right to seek declaration of ownership under Section 11 of the Act. Therefore, in our opinion, both the authorities had rightly dismissed the claim of the petitioner. No ground for interference in the impugned orders is made out. Writ petition is devoid of merit. Dismissed. ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) JUDGE December 07, 2011 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkd JUDGE 4