IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 19110 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION : 17.11.2011 Bharpur Singh .... PETITIONER Versus Director, Rural Development and Panchayat (Exercising the powers of Commissioner) and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Mr. K.S. Chahal, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) Petitioner Bharpur Singh has filed the instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 22.7.2011 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Commissioner, whereby the order dated 3.8.2010 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Collector, Patiala, dismissing the petition filed by Gram Panchayat, Village Dharoki, Block and Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala (respondent No.3 herein) under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, for evicting the petitioner from the land comprised in khasra No. 79, has been set aside. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned order. CWP No. 19110 of 2011 -2- As per the revenue record, undisputedly, khasra No. 79 belongs to the Gram Panchayat, which was reserved for Gair Mumkin Mata Rani and is also being used as a passage. The sole contention of the petitioner is that his forefathers have purchased the land in question vide registered sale deed dated 17.9.1956. Vide the said sale deed, the ancestors of the petitioner purchased khasra Nos. 295, 297 and 294. It is the further contention of the petitioner that in consolidation, khasra No. 79 was allotted against khasra No. 295. This is factually incorrect. As per the jamabandi for the year 1964-65, annexed by the petitioner himself as Annexures P-5 and P-6, khasra No. 79 was carved out from khasra No. 159 min. This jamabandi further reflects that from khasra No. 295, khasra No. 78 was carved out, which is not in dispute. This is the finding recorded by the Commissioner that the land in dispute, comprised of khasra No. 79 on which the petitioner is in illegal possession, was never purchased by the ancestors of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid finding of fact, recorded by the authorities below, which cannot be gone into in the writ jurisdiction, the petitioner has no case on merits. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE November 17, 2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) ndj JUDGE