CWP No.9871 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.9871 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.07.2011 Gurnam Singh Lambardar and others ....Petitioners Versus Director Rural Development and Panchayat and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Ms. J.K. Gurna, Advocate, for the petitioners. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Present petition is filed impugning order dated 12.10.2009 passed by respondent No.2 as well as order dated 26.11.2010 passed by respondent No.1. Brief facts inter alia are that proceeding under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 was initiated against the petitioners. Before the Collector-cum-Divisional Deputy Director Panchayat stand of Baldev Singh son of Gurnam Singh (son of petitioner No.1) was that he has purchased the land through registered sale deed dated 22.12.1987 from Sh. Bhupinder Singh son of Mohan Singh and earlier built a kutcha house and now has constructed pucca house and the pucca house is not a part of the pond nor is part of khasra Nos.423 and 424. Respondent No.1 in order dated 26.11.2010 has observed as under: - CWP No.9871 of 2011 (O&M) 2 “After hearing the arguments and perusing the record I have reached to the conclusion that there is no illegality in the order of the lower court because the disputed land is the ownership of the gram panchayt. It is shown in the revenue record as 'Gair Mumkin Tobha'. Appellants have not shown any document either before this court or before lower court whereby it can be seen that appellants or their seller are owners or they have any cultivation possession over the disputed land since 26 January, 1950. It should have been verified by the appellants before purchasing the land that seller is the actual owner of the land or not. Appellants have not produced any document before this Court or before lower court whereby this possession can be shown to be legal. Appeal has no merit, it is being dismissed and the orders of the lower court is upheld.” On being asked as to whether land of khasra Nos.423 and 424 is owned and managed by gram panchayat and is left for common purposes, learned counsel for the petitioner could not deny it and raised only one argument that his house is not standing on the panchayat land. As per the record, land in dispute is shown as gair mumkin tobha. There is nothing on record to point out that either petitioners or their predecessor-in-interest i.e. Bhupinder Singh son of Mohan Singh was in possession prior to 26.1.1950. Petitioners have not raised question of title before the authorities below. In view of the above, impugned orders do not require any interference. Dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge July 12, 2011 R.S.