IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.19198 of 2009 Date of decision : 12.12.2011 Jasbir Singh and others … Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Mr.Rajesh Garg, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Manohar Lall, Addl.AG., Punjab for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr.Ashok Jindal, Advocate for respondent No.4. Paramjeet Singh, J. The present Civil Writ Petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing order dated 06.11.2006 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Collector under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Act’) whereby the ejectment of the petitioners from the land in dispute, had been ordered and for quashing order dated 4.12.2009 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Commissioner in appeal. The brief facts of the case are that the Gram Panchayat- respondent No.4 filed a petition under Section 7 of the Act for ejectment of the petitioners from the land in dispute on the ground that the land shown as ‘ABCD’ in the site plan, is under the ownership of the Gram Panchayat and is reserved for the common purposes like village pond. The land in question falls within the Lal Lakir (Red Line) of the village. CWP No.19198 of 2009 Learned Collector after considering the evidence on record, recorded a finding that the land in question, is part and parcel of the village pond. The petitioners have encroached upon the part of the pond. It is also admitted by the petitioners in their cross-examination that there are Baras on the disputed land and their residential houses are situated at a distance from the land in dispute. It has also been held that petitioners have failed to prove their ownership and possession over the land in dispute prior to 26.1.1950. The said finding was affirmed by the Commissioner and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this writ petition. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the land in question is within the Lal Lakir (Red line) and falls within the definition of abadi deh, as such, the petitioners cannot be evicted from the land in question. The said land had never been a part of village pond and was never used for the common purposes. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that a pucca house has been constructed on the land in question. The possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute is as owners much prior to 26.1.1950. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is not sustainable. In the cross-examination the witnesses of the petitioners have admitted this fact that they are having their Baras in the disputed land. Hakam Singh, one of the witnesses, has admitted in his cross-examination that he is having his residential house out side the disputed land and only plinths have been filled up to show possession over the part of the land in dispute. So, the contention is rejected. 2 CWP No.19198 of 2009 Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any document to indicate that their possession over the land in dispute. There is no iota of evidence on record to show that the petitioners are owners of the land in question. The concurrent finding of facts have been recorded by both the authorities below that the land in dispute is a village pond, which has been encroached upon by the petitioners. The village pond falls within the definition of Shamlat as defined in Section 2(g) (4) of the Act. Furthermore, in the statements of the witnesses of the petitioners, it has been specifically admitted that ‘Khup, Dher, Guhara etc. had been set up on the land in dispute. The houses of other petitioners are situated outside the land in dispute. The petitioners, namely Mehar Singh, Ram Parkash and Bahadur Singh have also admitted that there are baras on the disputed land and admission of Hakam Singh that the residential house is situated outside the disputed land clearly indicates that the land does not belong to the petitioners rather they had encroached upon the land of the village pond. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality, perversity or impropriety in the orders passed by the authorities below. The writ is devoid of any merit. Dismissed. ( PARAMJEET SINGH) JUDGE (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE 12.12.2011 sd 3