IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 11785 of 2009 Date of Decision: December 01, 2011 Amrik Singh and others. …Petitioners Versus Director, Rural Development and Panchayats Department, Punjab and others. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, HON’BLR MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH. Present: Mr. Gurcharan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Manohar Lall, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. Gurinderjit Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr. N.K. Banka, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 4 & 6. ***** Paramjeet Singh, J. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of order dated 01.04.2009 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Commissioner, whereby application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) filed by the Gram Panchayat has been allowed and order dated 22.02.2006 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Collector CWP No.11785 of 2009 dismissing the application under Section 7 of the Act has been set aside. The brief facts of the case are that the Gram Panchayat filed a petition under Section 7 of the Act for ejectment of the petitioners from the land shown as A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H situated within the Lal Lakir of Village Singhpura, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar. This petition was filed through Panchayat Secretary under the orders of the District Development and Panchayat Officer. The case of the Gram Panchayat is that the Gram Panchayat is owner of the site in dispute. This is a chowk of the village which is being used for common purposes. The residents of the village are using the chowk for parking of the vehicles. The petitioners had put up illegal Gohara (cow dung heaps) and had raised boundary wall around the disputed site. The petitioners filed written statement and had contested the claim before the Collector stating that over 40 houses had been constructed in Khasra No. 24 min. The construction is prior to 26.01.1950. The houses were constructed by their forefathers. The petitioners also stated in their written statement that the land is within the Lal Lakir and no chowk as projected by the Gram Panchayat as A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H is in existence. The Collector dismissed the application of the Gram Panchayat. However, on appeal, order of the Collector has been set aside by the Commissioner. The Commissioner had recorded a finding that the witnesses of the petitioners, Mohan Singh, Hazara Singh and Gurmit Singh had admitted that the site in dispute is a chowk and is being used by the residents of the village for common purposes. There is no evidence on record that the possession of the 2 CWP No.11785 of 2009 petitioners is prior to 26.01.1950. It is also mentioned in the order of the Commissioner that reports of the Divisional Deputy Director, Panchayat and District Development and Panchayat Officer had not been examined in which it is having proved that the site in dispute is a chowk and Sarpanch is conniving with the petitioners, who are in unauthorized possession. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. As per jamabandi for the year 1960-61, the property in question is abadi deh and this so described in the subsequent jamabandies. In the jamabandi for the year 1971-72, the possession over 5 Marlas land is of Ram Rakha, where he has set up a factory. In the jamabandi for the year 2006-07, that part is shown to have been in possession of Ram Rakha as a house. It has come in the evidence of one of the petitioners i.e. Amrik Singh and his witnesses, namely, Mohan Singh, Jeet Singh and wife Gurmail Kaur are the Member Panchayat. They had been tethering their buffaloes and the site is a Bara. His residential house is about 150 meters away from the site. Gurmit Singh, one of the witnesses of the petitioners also admitted that in the site in dispute, there is a pilkan tree and it is animal house of Amrik Singh. The petitioners failed to point out that their case fall in any of the exception mentioned in Section 2(g) of the Act. In view of the findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner on appreciation of evidence on record and the statements of the petitioners and their witnesses, we do not find any reason to disagree with the findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner. 3 CWP No.11785 of 2009 Thus, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) JUDGE December 01, 2011 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkd JUDGE 4