IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15778 of 2011 Date of Decision: August 26, 2011 Tarsem Lal & another ...Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.D.K.Bhatti, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners have impugned the order passed by the Director, Village Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab, whereby the appeal filed by them against the order passed by District Development and Panchayat Officer-cum-Collector, Jalandhar has been dismissed. The petitioners claim to be in possession of the property as tenants and primarily rely upon a judgment (Annexure P- 2). Passed in their favour by the civil court. No doubt, the petitioners were held to be in possession and had filed a civil suit seeking a restraint order for the respondents not to dispossess them forcibly. The civil court, on the basis of evidence led, found the petitioners to be in possession of the suit land and granted an order restraining the respondents from forcibly dispossessing the petitioners from the suit land, except in due course of law. Thereafter, application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act was filed and the eviction of the petitioners has been ordered. Concededly, the petitioners have also Civil Writ Petition No.15778 of 2011 : 2 : been dispossessed. The petitioners filed an appeal against the order. The disputed land is having a Darbar of Lakh Data Peer. The appellate Authority noticed that petitioners did not produce any evidence regarding their ownership. Even at the time of appeal, no material was produced by the petitioners and it is so noticed in the order. The reliance on the civil court decree may not help as the court had only directed that the petitioners be dispossessed only in accordance with law. The appellate Authority thereafter did not find any merit in the pleas. To be fair to the counsel for the petitioners, he has made reference to the documents and the record, which was also produced before the civil court to show the possession of the petitioners. The nature of possession appears to be as a tenant. If that is so, then the petitioners have been dispossessed. The petitioners, being tenants, will not be able to claim the right of ownership over the suit property. The possession of the petitioners, thus, cannot be restored back. I find no merit in the writ petition and would dismiss the same. August 26, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE