CWP No.6646 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 6646 of 2008 Date of decision:14.7.2008 Lamber Ram ....Petitioner. vs. State of Punjab and another. ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTI CE J.S.KHEHAR. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr.K.S.Hissowal, Advocate, for the petitioner. -- J.S.KHEHAR,J. The Gram Panchayat village Kandiana Kalan, Sub Tehsil Kum Kalan Tehsil Ludhiana (East), District Ludhiana, filed a petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation)Act, 1961 for the ejectment of the petitioner from the land in his possession. The claim of the Gram Panchayat was that the land in question was given to Piara Ram on rent for the year 1979-80. A lease deed was also executed by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the aforesaid Piara Ram. The aforesaid lease deed is available on the record of the revenue authorities in the instant case as Annexure P2. It was also pointed out that the rent for the land in question,for the year 1979-80 was at the rate of Rs.1075/- per annum. The payment of rent by Piara Ram has also been demonstrated before the revenue authorities through a receipt Exhibit P3. Tenancy between the Gram Panchayat and Piara Ram was also established on the basis of the subsequent rent receipt for the year 1980-81 at the rate of Rs.2500/- per annum. After the death of the aforesaid Piara Ram in the year 1982, his CWP No.6646 of 2008 2 legal heirs (petitioners before this Court) are alleged to have remain in illegal possession of the aforesaid land. It was also asserted that no rent has been paid to the Gram Panchayat after the death of the aforesaid Piara Ram. Besides the eviction of the petitioner, the Gram Panchayat also sought compensation on account of the fact that the legal heirs of Piara Ram continued to occupy the aforesaid Gram Panchayat land illegally. It would be pertinent to mention that notice was sent to the petitioner (before this Court) in furtherance of the ejectment petition filed by the Gram Panchayat on 26.9.2000. The family members of the petitioner (before this Court) refused to accept notice on his behalf. Accordingly, in the presence of the village Chowkidar notice of the ejectment petition was pasted on the door of the house of Lamber Ram (the petitioner before this Court). Despite the aforesaid, since Lamber Ram did not enter appearance he was proceeded against ex parte. The Collector, Ludhiana, by his order dated 20.10.2005 arrived at the conclusion, on the basis of the evidence available on the record, as has been enumerated in the paragraph immediately preceding the paragraph hereinabove, accepted the claim raised by the Gram Panchayat to the effect that Lamber Ram was in illegal possession of Gram Panchayat land. He was accordingly ordered to be ejected. Since the lease between the Gram Panchayat and Piara Ram i.e. father of Lamber Ram expired in the year 1982, Lamber Ram was also directed to pay compensation to the Gram Panchayat for illegal occupation of this land. Dissatisfied with the order of the Collector,Ludhiana, dated 20.10.2005, Lamber Ram filed an appeal before the Commissioner (IRD) Exercising the powers of the Commissioner,Ludhiana. During the course of CWP No.6646 of 2008 3 the appellate proceedings the case set up by Lamber Ram was to the effect that the suit land was declared as evacuee property, and was allotted to the predecessors-in-interest of the appellant Lamber Ram. It was also the case set up by the petitioner in the aforesaid appeal that the petitioner was in exclusive possession of the land from the year 1961 onwards. This Court by its order dated 24.4.2008 required the petitioner to place on the record of this case previous jamabandis showing that the land in question was under the ownership of the Central Government. Despite the opportunity afforded to the petitioner, no such material was placed on the record of this case. We required the learned counsel for the petitioner to demonstrate the assertion made by the petitioner to the effect that the ancestors had been in exclusive possession of the land in question from the year 1961 onwards. Learned counsel for the petitioner however, could not demonstrate from the pleadings on the record of this case that the ancestors of the petitioner were in exclusive possession of the land in dispute. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he is not at fault on account of the fact that he has placed on the record of this case all the material furnished to him by the petitioner. Since the petitioner has not been able to substantiate any of the pleas raised by him before the Appellate Authority, we are of the view that the instant writ petition has been filed under the hope that the petitioner will be able to continue in possession of the disputed land for some more time. Since there is nothing on the record of this case to substantiate the claim of the petitioner, we find no merit in the instant writ petition. We also find no ground to interfere in the impugned orders dated 20.10.2005 and 21.11.2007. CWP No.6646 of 2008 4 For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. ( J.S.Khehar ) Judge Judge July 14, 2008 rk