CWP No. 10207 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 10207 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: June 01, 2011 Jagroop Singh .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. S.K. Bawa, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing orders Annexures P-5 and P-6 dated 09.09.2009 and 16.02.2011 passed by the prescribed authority under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as applicable to Punjab (for short 'The Act') and the appellate authority thereto, respectively. 2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in possession of the land for the last more than 70 years and, therefore, the orders passed by the authorities are illegal. 3. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel. 4. The proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 7 of the Act have been decided against the petitioner before the Forums provided under the Act. So far as proceedings under Section 11 of the Act initiated at the instance of the petitioner are concerned, the impugned orders have been passed on the premise that possession of the petitioner finds mention for the CWP No. 10207 of 2011 2 first time in jamabandi for the year 1984-85. The petitioner was required to show his possession since before 26.01.1950. 5. No such relevant record was produced by the petitioner. Rather mutation sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat has not been challenged. 6. During arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to disprove the facts as narrated in order Annexure P-5 (running page no. 45) and order Annexure P-6 (running page no. 58 of the paper book). 7. Because the impugned orders have been passed while taking into account relevant material, no ground for judicial review of the impugned orders is made out in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. It has not been shown that the findings are perverse in nature on misreading of evidence. 8. Petition dismissed. 01.06.2011 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?