IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14482 of 2011 Date of Decision: August 10, 2011 Gurmukh Singh & another ...Petitioners Versus Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab, Mohali & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Munish Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The Gram Panchayat has filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) for eviction of the petitioners from the land in dispute in the year 2005. The petitioners claimed ownership prior to 26.1.1950. However, the application of the Gram Panchayat was allowed. Appeal filed against this order was dismissed on 12.11.2010. During the pendency of this application, the petitioners filed a petition under Section 11 of the Act claiming, ownership and title of the property. This petition was filed in the year 2006. The same was also rejected and the Gram Panchayat was declared as owner on 13.2.2008. The reason which weighed with the authority primarily was the affidavit filed by petitioner No.1. The petitioner was noted to be a graduate. He had stated in his affidavit that he had seen the revenue record before filing the present case and had exhibited the Civil Writ Petition No.14482 of 2011 : 2: same on record. During his cross-examination, petitioner No.1 conceded that the record from 1983-84 to update was exhibited with the record file at the time of filing of the case. In his examination, he had stated that record upto 1965-66 is available with him and he has no record earlier to that regarding the land in dispute. In view of this statement, which petitioner No.1 himself made in his affidavit, he cannot be permitted to plead and claim ownership prior to 26.1.1950. The petitioners did not lead the relevant evidence in this regard. The counsel cannot be heard to plead on these lines. In view of the finding recorded against the petitioners for their ejectment as well as ownership on the basis of evidence on record, no case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is made out. Dismissed. August 10, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE