IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 1583 of 2008 Date of Decision: December 01, 2011 Gurnam Singh and others. …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, HON’BLR MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH. Present: Ms. Rupinder K. Thind, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Manohar Lall, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ****** Paramjeet Singh, J. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of order dated 28.02.2005 (Annexure P/6) passed by the Collector, whereby application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) filed by the Gram Panchayat has been allowed and order dated 08.11.2007 (Annexure P/11) passed by the Commissioner. The brief facts of the case are that the Gram Panchayat filed an application under Section 7 of the Act for eviction of the petitioners from the land measuring 12 kanals described in the application situated in the revenue limits of Village Pandori Waraich, Tehsil and District Amritsar. The case of the Gram CWP No.1583 of 2008 Panchayat is that the land in dispute is a part of pond and is being used for the benefit of the villagers and is a common purpose land. The land vests in the Gram Panchayat for management and control as per the provisions of Section 23-A of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 and Rule 16(ii) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949. The application for ejectment was allowed by the Collector by recording a finding of fact that the petitioners are unauthorized occupants and they are liable to be evicted and also directed them to pay Rs.3,60,000/- as compensation at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per acre per year for use and occupation of the land, as unauthorized occupants. The appeal preferred by the petitioners against the order of the Collector had also been dismissed on the ground that the petitioners have failed to prove the old possession over the land or ownership of the land. Hence, this writ petition. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The findings of fact have been recorded by both the Revenue Authorities below that land is described as “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan” in the ownership column, whereas the land vests in the Gram Panchayat for management and control as per the provisions of Section 23-A of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 and Rule 16(ii) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949. The petitioners have failed to prove the old possession on or before 26.01.1950. Moreover, the petitioners had earlier filed a petition under Section 2 CWP No.1583 of 2008 11 of the Act which was also dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 14.03.2008. The petitioners preferred appeal against the order of the Collector vide appeal No. 68 of 2008, the same had also been dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated 16.09.2009. Since, the title suit of the petitioners had already been dismissed and the appeal preferred against that, too had been dismissed, so, we find no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Authorities below under the Act and the petitioners are liable to be evicted from the land in dispute and also liable to pay compensation for use and occupation as assessed by the Collector. No merit. Dismissed. ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) JUDGE December 01, 2011 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkd JUDGE 3