IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 15365 of 2010 Date of Decision: November 22, 2011 Mohinder Singh and another. …Petitioners Versus Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchaat Development and others. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH. Present: Mr. S.M. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Manohar Lall, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Ms. Naiya Gill, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Paramjeet Singh, J. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of order dated 25.03.2010 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.2 – District Development and Panchayat Officer, S.A.S. Nagar (exercising the powers of Collector) under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) whereby application of the Gram Panchayat under Section 7 of the Act has been allowed and the petitioners have been ordered to be evicted and appeal preferred by the petitioners against the order of the Collector (Annexure P/1) has also been dismissed by CWP No. 15365 of 2010 respondent No.1 – Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department (exercising the powers of the Commissioner) under the Act vide his order dated 18.08.2010 (Annexure P/2). The brief facts of this case, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, are that the petitioners are khewatdars of the village and the Gram Panchayat has never been in possession of the land in dispute. As per the jamabandi for the year 2006-07, the land in dispute is recorded in the revenue record as “Mustarka Malkan”. Thus, the Gram Panchayat has no right to evict the petitioners from the land in question. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 – Gram Panchayat submitted that the petitioners are in illegal possession over the land in dispute and the petitioners got the khasra girdawari changed in their names in connivance with the revenue officials. The land in question is being auctioned every year and the income from the same is being used for common purposes. It is also the case of the Gram Panchayat that the petitioners are not in continuous possession since 26.01.1950. As per the revenue record, the petitioners are also recorded as “Chakotedar”. They have earlier taken the property on lease at the rate of Rs.215/- “bill mukta saal tamam (lumpsum for a year) and thereafter neither gave rent nor vacated the possession. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders and documents annexed with the writ petition. Perusal of jamabandi for the year 2006-07 shows that in the ownership column, the land is recorded as “Mustarka Malkan”. 2 CWP No. 15365 of 2010 As per the record, the Gram Panchayat has auctioned this land every year vide Pattanama (Ex.P3). From the above referred revenue record, it is clear that the disputed land in the revenue record is reserved for common purposes, so, vests in the Panchayat for management and control under Section 23-A of the East Punjab Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 and Rule 16(ii) of the East Punjab Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949. The finding recorded is to the effect that the petitioners after taking the land in dispute on lease have remained in illegal occupation of land. Further, reading of the Khasra Girdawari (Annexure P/3) shows that the petitioners were “Gair Marusi, Chakotdar”. Furthermore, in jamabandi for the year 2006-07 (Annexure P/6), the petitioners are recorded as “Chakota 275/- Bill Mukta Saal Tamam” (lumpsum for a year). These findings have been affirmed by the Commissioner vide his order dated 18.08.2010 (Annexure /2) by recording a finding that the petitioners have taken the land on lease, thereafter, did not hand over the possession. No documentary evidence has been produced by the petitioners, which shows they paid rent. No receipt of payment is on record. From the record of auction produced by the Gram Panchayat, it is clear that this land was used to put on auction. A chakotdar cannot claim ownership. He has no right to challenge the ownership of the landlord. It has also been held by the Commissioner that the petitioners have failed to show from the revenue record that their possession over the land in dispute is prior to 26.01.1950 which may indicate that they falls in the exceptions. Rather, the finding is recorded by the Commissioner is that learned counsel for the 3 CWP No. 15365 of 2010 petitioners admitted that they are in possession since 1982. As per the settled law, the “Mustarka Malkan” land vests in the Gram Panchayat for the purpose of management and control. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment in the matter of Kaka Singh vs. Additional Director of Consolidation, Punjab reported in 2001(4) RCR (Civil) 14. This judgment is not applicable in the present case. In that case, the members of the Scheduled Castes Community has claimed that they have right to take the land on lease as per the provisions of Section 6 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964. That order was challenged. Here is a case which is under Section 7 of the Act. The reliance upon this judgment on the part of the petitioners is misconceived. Since, the petitioners are in illegal possession, both the revenue authorities have rightly passed the orders of eviction from the land in question. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any illegality/perversity in the impugned orders. In view of the finding of facts recorded by both the revenue authorities, the present petition is devoid of merit. Dismissed. ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) JUDGE November 22, 2011 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkd JUDGE 4