Letters Patent Appeal No.533 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Letters Patent Appeal No.533 of 2009 Date of decision: 10.08.2009 *** Ved Parkash and another ...appellants Versus Joint Deputy Commissioner (IRD) and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Sandeep Bansal, Advocate for the appellantss ***** J.S.KHEHAR, J.(ORAL) Through the instant Letters Patent Appeal, the appellants have impugned the order passed by this Court on 24.2.2009 while disposing of the Civil Writ Petition No.2524 of 2009. The short order passed by the learned Single Judge is being extracted hereunder:- “The primary submission made by the counsel for the petitioners is that this application has been filed by village Patalpuri, whereas the land falls in village Dayalpura. Infact, evidence was led before the authorities to show that Khasra No. 23//3 measuring 7 kanals 2 marlas was transferred from Gram Panchayat Waryam Nangal to Gram Panchayat Patalpuri. Gram Panchayat Patalpuri was bifurcated out of Gram Panchayat Letters Patent Appeal No.533 of 2009 -2- **** Waryam Nangal during 1998. The person producing the record was cross-examined at length and nothing could be taken out from him. He also denied if the respondents were in possession for the last 100 years. The submission that petitioners are in possession would also not help the petitioners as it has been found as a matter of fact that the respondents have not placed on record any document, which may show that they are in possession of the land in dispute prior to 26.1.1950. In view of the above, I do not consider any reason which would call for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Reliance on the civil court judgment would also be meaningless as jurisdiction of the civil court to decide the title is barred.” It is in the background of the issues adjudicated upon by the learned Single Judge, that we required learned counsel for the appellants to substantiate whether or not the land in respect of which proceedings were initiated by the Gram Panchayat, Patalpuri, under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was actually within the revenue estate of village Patalpuri. In response to our query, learned counsel for the appellants has advanced two submissions. Firstly that in a civil suit initiated by the predecessor of the appellants, the Trial Court had arrived at the conclusion that the land in question was situated within the revenue estate of village Dialpuri. Secondly, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants had raised an issue of title, in reply to the application filed by the Gram Panchayat, Patalpuri under Section 7 of the Act, and as such, it Letters Patent Appeal No.533 of 2009 -3- **** was imperative for the concerned revenue authority to first adjudicate the issue of title, and then, examine the issue of ejectment. We have considered both the responses to our query. Insofar as the reliance on the judgment rendered by the Civil Court is concerned, its perusal reveals that the Gram Panchayat, Dialpuri was not defended in the suit filed by the predecessor of the appellants. Additionally, after the ejectment proceedings were initiated by the Gram Panchayat, Patalpuri against the appellants, it was imperative for the appellants to raise a pointed objection qua the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat, Patalpuri. There is no material whatsoever on the record of this case to depict, whether or not, any such objection was raised at the hands of the appellant before the revenue authorities. It would, however, be unfair to the learned counsel for the appellants if we do not make a reference of the order dated 26.3.2002 rendered by the District Development and Panchayat Officer exercising the powers of the Collector, wherein, in the second paragraph of the aforesaid order, it has been noticed that the appellants had raised the issue of title. This observation recorded in the order dated 26.3.2002 does not necessarily lead to an inference, that the appellants had raised an objection that the land in respect of which the ejectment application had been filed by the Gram Panchayat, Patalpuri, did not factually fall within the revenue estate of village Patalpuri. In the absence of the reply filed by the appellants or their predecessor before the revenue authority in response to the application under Section 7 of the Act, it is not possible for us to accept the instant contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. In view of the above, we find no merit in the first contention raised by the learned Letters Patent Appeal No.533 of 2009 -4- **** counsel for the appellants based on the plea that the land in respect of which ejectment was sought by the Gram Panchayat, Patalpuri did not fall within the revenue estate of that village. It was the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the petitioner enjoyed a statutory protection. It is submitted that the petitioner could not be evicted from the land in question, because he and his predecessors had been in possession before 26.1.1950. In recording its conclusion, this Court in its order dated 24.2.2009 held that the appellants had not been able to place any material on record of the case depicting the possession of the appellants or their predecessor prior to 26.1.1950. Even during the course of hearing today, learned counsel for the appellants has not invited our attention to any such material on the basis of which it can be concluded that the appellants or their predecessor were in possession of the land in question before 26.1.1950. Thus viewed, we find no merit in the second contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. No other issue was pressed before us. For the reasons recorded herein above, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (J.S.KHEHAR) JUDGE August 10, 2009 (S.D.ANAND) Pka JUDGE