IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 888 of 2006 Date of decision: 13.5.2008 Des Raj ......Petitioner Vs. The Commissioner and others. ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.S.GAREWAL HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present: Mr.Bhag Singh, Advocate, for the petitioiner. Ms.Kirti Singh, A.A.G. Haryana for respondents 1 to 3. Mr.Parminder Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.4. JUDGMENT DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of order dated September 21, 2005 (Annexure P-6) passed by Commissioner, order dated August 10, 2001 (Annexure P-5) passed by District Collector and order dated January 31, 2000 (Annexure P-4) passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade vide which the petitioner has been ordered to be evicted from the abadi land. Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the writ petition, are that the Gram Panchayat filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Land ( Regulations) Act, 1961 in the Court of Assistant Collector Ist Grade for ejectment of the petitioner from the land measuring 20 kanals in Khasra No. 107/3 situated within the abadi deh of village Sabga. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade passed ejectment order of the petitioner from the land in dispute vide order dated January 31, 2000 and imposed a penalty of Rs.5000/- per annum for causing loss to the Panchayat on account of unauthorised possession since 1995. An appeal was filed before the Collector, which was dismissed vide order dated August 10, 2001. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision before the Commissioner which was also dismissed vide order dated September 21, 2005. Hence the present petition. Mr. Bhag Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the lower authorities without discussing any evidence have wrongly held that the possession of the petitioner is since 1997 whereas the petitioner is in possession prior to 1995 and the land in dispute has never been used for common purposes of the village. He argued that the land in dispute is owned by the proprietary body and the same does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. He argued that an objection was raised by the petitioner that a question of title was involved, but instead of deciding the question of title, the eviction proceedings were ordered. He further argued that petitioner is in possession of the land in dispute being a share-holder. Written statement on behalf of respondent No.4 has been filed, which is on record. Mr.Parminder Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.4, has raised a preliminary objection that the present writ petition is not maintainable as no cause of action has arisen to the petitioner. As per section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Land ( Regulations) Act, 1961, the land in dispute is covered under the definition of Shamlat Deh. He further argued that the land was taken on lease by the petitioner through his uncle Iqbal Singh in 1995-96 and subsequently in 1996-97, this land was taken on lease by Basant Ram, but on account of illegal encroachment made by the petitioner, a resolution dated March 6, 1998 was passed to initiate proceedings under Section 7 of Punjab Village Common Land ( Regulation) Act, 1961 against the petitioner and an eviction order was passed. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the orders passed by the authorities below and are of the view that the petitioner has not been able to prove his claim over the land in dispute. Neither the petitioner has proved his claim over the land in dispute nor possession has been proved. A specific finding has been given by the District Collector that the land vests in the Gram Panchayat and the same is used for common purposes and the possession over the land in dispute is unauthorized by the petitioner. The stand of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is in possession of disputed land being a co-sharer, is falsified by the fact that the land in dispute was taken on lease by the petitioner through his uncle Iqbal Singh and he could not prove his proprietary rights and moreover the land in dispute has not been partitioned. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to show any document to prove his possession over the property in dispute but he was unable to show any document. The only argument advanced by counsel for the petitioner is that he is in possession over the land in dispute for the last many years. In the absence of any documentary evidence in support of his claim, this argument does not carry weight. Moreover, the revenue authorities have concurrently held that the petitioner's possession over the disputed land is unauthorized. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. ( Daya Chaudhary) Judge ( K. S. Garewal) May 13 , 2008 Judge raghav