IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.10 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 21.04.2011 Shadi Lal …..Appellant versus Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar etc. ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.G.S.Nagra, Advocate for the appellant Jasbir Singh, J. This appeal has been filed against an order dated 20.8.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing CWP No.7419 of 2007, filed by the appellant. Respondent Municipal Committee filed an application for ejectment of the appellant, from the land falling in khasra Nos.58/17/1 (0- 16), 17/2(0-11), 17/3 (0-6), 17/4 (0-16), 17/5 (0-16), 17/6(0-11), by stating that possession of the appellant was unauthorized. The Collector, on receipt of reply filed by the appellant, framed the issues and after giving an ample opportunity to both the parties to produce evidence, came to a conclusion that the land, in dispute, belongs to the Nagar Council and possession of the appellant was illegal, accordingly, his ejectment was ordered. The appellant was also burdened with an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards damages for use and occupation of the land for the last three years. The appellant went in LPA No.10 of 2011(O&M) appeal, which was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner, vide order dated 21.12.2006, by observing as under:- “I have considered the contents of arguments advanced by the counsel for both the parties and gone through the record of case placed on the file. As per revenue record. M.c. Nurmahal is owner and Shadi Lal is in possession as Gair Marusi. The matter has been decided by the Civil Court. Notice under P.P. Act served upon the appellant had already been produced by the appellant in the Civil Court and the Civil Court has decided the case directing the M.C. / N.C. / not to disposes, the respondent i.e. appellant Shadi Lal except in due course of law. Hence, M.C. Nurmahal. Shadi lal is in possession as Gair Marusi and could not establish the menor in which the land is in his possession. In absence of proof, the possession is unauthorized. The pleading and arguments of Shadi Lal being irrelevant cannot be considered under P.P. Act. I have also gone through the Civil Court judgment dated 1.10.1999 and even civil court has observed is that suit, that the defendant has also issued notice upon the plaintiff as Exz.D1 which also proves that fact, that the defendant wants to evict, the plaintiff, but the defendant is recorded as owner in the revenue record produced by the plaintiff. The defendant has also right to evict the plaintiff by way of resorting to the legal remedy. It has further been held by the Civil Court that Shadi Lal was entitled to injunction only to the limited extent and he could be evicted in due course of law. Certainly, the proceeding under P.P. Act is the due course of law under 2 LPA No.10 of 2011(O&M) which entire proceedings have been initiated and so the eviction order was passed by the appropriate authority. Therefore I agree with the contentions of the counsel for respondent MC/NC Nurmahal that the order of lower court was rightly passed. Hence, the appeal is baseless, without any merit and the same is dismissed and the order of the lower court is upheld. File be consigned to the record room.” The appellant filed CWP No.7419 of 2007, which was dismissed vide the impugned order. Hence this appeal. After hearing counsel for the appellant, we feel that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is perfectly justified. The appellant has failed to indicate any legal flaw in the same. After taking note of the evidence on record, the learned Single Judge noted that the land, in dispute, was merged within the municipal limits on 31.8.1997. The authenticity of that notification was not challenged by the appellant. Furthermore, it was also noted that the appellant has failed to prove on record that the land vests in the proprietors of the village. The appellant has failed to prove that he was a proprietor in the village and had contributed any land when shamlat deh was reserved/ earmarked. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant entered in possession of the land under any authority. No legal infirmity has been indicated in the order passed. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 21.04.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge 3