C.W.P. No. 2582 of 1986 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 2582 of 1986 Date of Decision:- 26.07.2011 Roor Singh and another .....Petitioners Versus Joint Director of Panchayats Punjab and others .....Respondents Present:- Mr. Navkesh Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Bhandohal, Advocate for the respondents. **** SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J (Oral) C.M. No.8 of 2011 For the reasons stated in the application and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, delay of 24 days in filing the application is condoned, subject to all just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. C.M. No.9 of 2011 This is an application for restoration of the writ petition which was dismissed in default vide order dated 10.9. 2010. For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the application is allowed and the writ petition is restored to its original number. C.W.P. No. 2582 of 1986 2 C.M. stands disposed of. C.W.P. No. 2582 of 1986 In this petition the petitioner is praying for quashing of order dated 27.3.1985 (Annexure P1), 27.3.1985 (Annexure P2) passed by the Collector as well as the order dated 25.1.1986 (Annexure P3) passed by the Commissioner. A perusal of the order dated Annexure P1 shows that on a title suit filed by the petitioner himself the land measuring 117 kanals 16 marlas of land was held to be in their possession which does not vest in the Gram Panchayat under the provisions of The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The title suit of the petitioner was accepted with regard to the said land and the application of the Gram Panchayat for ejectment of the petitioners from the said land under Section 7 of the Act was rejected. This order is actually in favour of the petitioner and it is not clear why the petitioner himself want this order to be quashed. The order Annexure P2 has been passed in the title suit filed by Gurmail Singh and Sher Singh, sons of Roor Singh. In that case they were claiming to be in possession of 66 kanals 2 marlas of land prior to coming of the aforesaid Act, and according to them the said land also does not fall under the definition of 'Shamlat Deh' and vest in the Gram Panchayat. The Collector after taking into consideration the revenue record and the 'khasra girdawari' has come to the conclusion that the aforesaid land was not in possession of the aforesaid persons since 26.1.1950, therefore, the said land vest in the Gram Panchayat. While coming to the said conclusion the Collector dismissed the title suit filed by them. Annexure P3 is the order passed by the Commissioner whereby three separate appeal one filed by Gram Panchayat and two filed by Roor Singh and Gurmail Singh C.W.P. No. 2582 of 1986 3 were dismissed. The Commissioner has upheld the orders while coming to the conclusion that as per the revenue record the collector has rightly come to the conclusion with regard to possession of Roor Singh etc of 117 kanals 16 marlas of land whereas Gurmail Singh and Sher Singh sons of Roor Singh have failed to prove their possession with regard to 66 kanals 2 marlas of land prior to 26.1.1950. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioners could not controvert the factual position that the finding with regard to land measuring 66 kanals 2 marlas is based upon the revenue record which clearly indicates that the possession of the petitioners on the said land is much after 26.1.1950. Learned counsel further argued that the possession of the petitioners has been decreased due to river action and the Courts below have not considered this aspect of the matter. A perusal of the impugned order Annexure P3 reveals that this contention of the petitioner has been considered by the Commissioner but in absence of any documentary evidence or material, the said contention was rejected. Thus, in my opinion, the findings of the authorities is based upon the finding of fact recorded by them which does not require any interference in this writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) July 26, 2011 JUDGE reema