IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 19874 of 2009 Date of Decision: November 14, 2011 Ram Singh and others. …Petitioners Versus The Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab and others. ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH. Present: Mr. P.C. Rakra, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Manohar Lall, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. Ranjit S. Dhiman, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Paramjeet Singh, J. Challenge in the present writ petition is to order dated 23.05.2008 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Commissioner whereby order dated 12.12.2002 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Collector, allowing the petition of the petitioners under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been set aside and the Commissioner has declared the Gram Panchayat as owner of the land in dispute. The present petition has been filed by Ram Singh etc., sons, daughters and widow of Nikka Ram, residents of CWP No.19874 of 2009 Village Beh Lakhan, Tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur. The petitioners have pleaded that their ancestors were permanent residents of Village Beh Lakhan, Tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur and were non-proprietors of the village. They were in continuous possession of land measuring 24 kanals 18 marlas comprising of new Khasra No.360 (prior to the consolidation, this was khasra No.320). After the death of their ancestors, the petitioners have stepped into the shoes of their ancestors. It is also claimed that they are in joint possession of the land in dispute. Their possession is reflected in the jamabandi for the year 1943-44 onwards till date. It is also the case of the petitioners that they have raised some construction and also planted 200 trees of fruits over the abadi land. It is also the case of the petitioners that they are in possession without payment of rent for more than 60 years and are in possession more than 12 years immediately preceding the commencement of the Act. Respondents in their reply have submitted about the validity of the order passed by the learned Commissioner We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Admittedly, the order of ejectment was passed by the Assistant Collector First Grade, Mukerian on 29.07.1988 and same has been affirmed by the Commissioner and the 2 CWP No.19874 of 2009 Financial Commissioner vide orders dated 18.02.1991 and 26.10.1995 and those orders have also become final. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the finding recorded in order dated 12.12.002 (Annexure P/2) by the Collector is correct. Order dated 23.05.2008 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Commissioner is not based on the revenue record. The petitioners are in continuous possession much prior to 26.01.1950. As per the jamabandies from 1916-17 till 1940- 41 in the ownership column, it is recorded as “Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad” and in the jamabandies for the years 1958-59, 1967-68, 1983-84, 1987-88 and 1993-94, the Gram Panchayat is recorded as owner. The Commissioner has recorded a finding of fact by appreciating the revenue record that the Gram Panchayat is owner of the disputed land. Admittedly, the “Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Khewat” is recorded in the jamabandies upto 1940-41 and thereafter, from the year 1958-59, the entry in the ownership column exists in the name of Gram Panchayat. The petitioners have never challenged those entries and now are taking this plea after a long gap. Not only this, the petitioners themselves have stated that they are in possession as a tenant, so they cannot be evicted. In the earlier proceedings under Section 7 of the Act, the orders of eviction and for recovery of amount have already been passed against 3 CWP No.19874 of 2009 Nikka, father of the petitioners and those orders have become final. Even in the civil suit, Nikka Ram, predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners had also claimed himself to be a tenant. Learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Dasuya, in its order dated 25.02.1987 (Annexure P/4) has also held that Nikka Ram, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was a tenant. It is settled law that a tenant cannot challenge the ownership of his landlord and as such, the petitioners have no right to oppose the petition filed by the Gram Panchayat under Section 11 of the Act. Thus, Gram Panchayat has rightly been declared owner of the suit land by the Commissioner in the impugned order. Resultantly, we do not find any illegality or material irregularity in the order passed by the revenue authority below which may warrant any interference in the present writ petition. No merits. Dismissed. (PARAMJEET SINGH) JUDGE 14.11.2011 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkd JUDGE 4