IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 23632 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION : 19.12.2011 Jagtar Singh .... PETITIONERS Versus The Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Ms. Naiya Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) Petitioner Jagtar Singh has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 12.11.2010 (Annexure P-11), passed by the Collector, Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby on an application filed by Gram Panchayat, Kalal Majra, Block Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib (respondent No.3 herein) under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, the petitioner was ordered to be evicted from an area of 4 Karams x 1 Karam of the land, comprised in Khasra No. 76//10, where he has illegally raised construction of a cow-shed; as well as the order dated 16.9.2011 (Annexure P-15), whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order has CWP No. 23632 of 2011 -2- been dismissed by the Commissioner. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned order. It has not been disputed by the petitioner that Khasra No. 76//10, measuring 5 Kanals 6 Marlas, is not owned by him. In the consolidation, as per the Field Book, the said Khasra Number was reserved for Dharamshala, a common purpose of the village. On the basis of the demarcation report, got conducted from Tehsildar, Amloh, the Collector has recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner has encroached upon the said Khasra Number by raising construction to the extent of 4 Karams x 1 Karam. This finding of fact has been affirmed in appeal by the Commissioner. Before the authorities below, the petitioner took the stand that he has not encroached upon any area of the aforesaid Khasra Number. However, he has not claimed any ownership on the said Khasra Number. It is also not the case of the petitioner that he was ever allotted any Ruri. During the course of arguments, the aforesaid finding, recorded by the authorities below, has not been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. However, she tried to argue that report of the Tehsildar, wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner has encroached upon part of the said Khasra Number, is not correct. The said report has been accepted by both the authorities below. We are not going into the merits of the impugned orders, passed by the authorities below, the same being finding of CWP No. 23632 of 2011 -3- fact based on report of the Tehsildar. No merits. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE December 19, 2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) ndj JUDGE