IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 19524 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION : 18.10.2011 Shamsher Singh .... PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Ms. Monika Jalota, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. On an application filed by the Gram Panchayat, Village Qasba Rurki (Bahadurgarh) Patiala (respondent No.4 herein) under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), vide order dated 28.7.2004 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Collector, Patiala, the petitioner was ordered to be evicted from the land in question, which was taken by him on lease. The said order has been upheld in appeal by the Commissioner vide his order dated 8.6.2009 (Annexure P-4). The petitioner has challenged both these orders in this writ petition. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned orders. CWP No. 19524 of 2011 -2- It is the case of the petitioner that being a riot victim, he was given the disputed land on lease by the Gram Panchayat, and thereafter, he has constructed three shops on the land in question and two rooms behind these shops, at his own expenses. The Collector has ordered eviction of the petitioner, after coming to the conclusion that the land was given by the Gram Panchayat on rent to the petitioner, but on the said land, he illegally constructed three shops, without any permission from the Gram Panchayat, and sub-let the same to respondents No.5 to 7. However, the petitioner has denied that he has given these shops on rent to respondents No.5 to 7. It is stated that he has paid rent to the Gram Panchayat from the year 1986 to 2003. The Appellate Authority affirmed the said order, while observing that the tenant cannot become owner of the Panchayat land and has no right to construct the shops on the land taken on lease, without the consent of the Panchayat, and then to sub-let the same to third person. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner had raised construction of shops with the consent of the Gram Panchayat, but this argument is without any substance, as in this regard, the petitioner did not lead any evidence before the authorities below, and both the authorities have recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner had raised construction of three shops illegally and unauthorisedly, without obtaining any permission from the Gram Panchayat. Merely because the petitioner claims himself to be a riot victim, he has no right to construct shops on the land of the Gram Panchayat, which was taken by him on lease. After the expiry of the lease CWP No. 19524 of 2011 -3- period, his possession on the land became illegal. Thereafter, he constructed three shops on the same, that too without permission of the Gram Panchayat, and thereafter, he rented out these shops to respondents No.5 to 7, who are running the business of car dealer, property dealer and a chicken shop, respectively. Thus, by renting out the shops for commercial purposes, the petitioner started earning huge profits, which is total mis-use of the land of the Gram Panchayat. In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain this petition in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE October 18, 2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) ndj JUDGE