C.W.P. No. 20647 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 20647 of 2011 Date of Decision:- 07.11.2011 Ram Chand .....Petitioner Versus Director, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab, and others .....Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present:- Mr. N.P.S. Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. **** SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J(Oral). The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the orders dated 30.10.2007 (Annexure P1) passed by the Collector whereby on the application of the Gram Panchayat, Kami Kalan, the petitioner has been ordered to be evicted from the land in dispute bearing Khewat/Khasra No. 100/233, Khasra No. 1217/171/1 (1-12), 1219/171/1 (1-10) and Kh. No. 485 (1-0) total measuring 4 Bighas 2 Biswas situated in village Kami Kalan, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala; as well as the order dated 22.9.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by Commissioner whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order has been dismissed. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and has gone through the impugned orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as far as the land comprising in Khasra No. 1217/171/1 (1-12) and 1219/171/1 (1-10) is C.W.P. No. 20647 of 2011 2 concerned, the petitioner has already made a statement before the authorities that he has no possession over the said land and the possession over the said land should deem to be of Gram Panchayat. Regarding Khasra No. 485 (1- 0), he submitted that a 'kotha'/'bara' was constructed by the ancestors of the petitioner. However, he has not disputed that the said khasra number belongs to Gram Panchayat. Both the authorities have held that there is no evidence on record which establishes that the construction raised by the petitioner was prior to enforcement of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), therefore, the case of the petitioner does not fall under Exception (vi) of Section 2 (g) of the Act. Faced with this situation, learned counsel states that the petitioner has already moved an application to the Gram Panchayat for purchase of this land, and in this regard the Gram Panchayat has already passed a resolution recommending case of the petitioner's to the Government vide Annexure P-7. In view of the said fact, learned counsel for petitioner states that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to pursue his application to purchase the land underneath on which the 'house'/'bara' of the petitioner's is existing, as per the State Government policy. Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE 07.11.2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) reema JUDGE