IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. 12027 of 2010 Date of Decision: November 29, 2011 Jaspal Singh ….Petitioner Versus 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. Sarjit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jasdev Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Manohar Lall, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Mr. Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Paramjeet Singh, J. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of order dated 03.09.2007 (Annexure P/11) passed by the Collector, whereby the petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been allowed and the petitioner has been ordered to be evicted and order dated 13.02.2009 (Annexure P/12) passed by the Commissioner, whereby appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed. The brief facts of the case are that the Gram Panchayat filed a petition under Section 7 of the Act for eviction of the petitioner from the shamlat deh/Nagar Panchayat land measuring CWP No. 12027 of 2010 9 kanals 8 Marlas situated in the revenue estate of Village Nanansu, Tehsil and District Patiala, which stand vested in the Gram Panchayat and had been given on lease for one year to the petitioner. The petitioner had not handed over the possession after expiry of lease, as such, he is in illegal possession without any right. It has been specifically mentioned in the petition under Section 7 of the Act that earlier the entry in the revenue record in the ownership column was “Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Zare Khewat” and in the cultivation column, it was mentioned as “Makbuja Malkan”. In the year 1956-57 mutation was sanctioned in the name of the Gram Panchayat and it has never been challenged, since then, it has been carried out in the subsequent jamabandies. The petitioner filed reply to the said application alleging that the land does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. Mutation has been wrongly sanctioned and has no effect on the rights of the petitioner in the eyes of law. The land is described as “Banjar Kadim” and has never been used for common purposes. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. On the file of the Collector, he has mentioned that Ex.P2 is the jamabandi for the year 2000-01, as per that jamabandi, the Gram Panchayat is the owner and the petitioner has been shown as a lessee. It is the case of the Gram Panchayat that lease was for one year and thereafter, the petitioner had not handed over the possession. After the expiry of lease possession of the lessee becomes illegal and unauthorized. The lessee is bound to hand over the possession to the Gram Panchayat as he has no right to continue in possession after the expiry of lease. It is the 2 CWP No. 12027 of 2010 admitted fact that in this case, the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 11 of the Act which was dismissed vide order dated 05.10.2009 (Annexure R-1) by the Collector and the appeal preferred against this said order as stated by the learned counsel for respondent No.3, has also been dismissed by the learned Commissioner on 16.02.2011. It would be appropriate to mention here that earlier a Civil Writ Petition No. 11815 of 2006 titled “Jaspal Singh and others vs. Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab and others, has been filed, which has been disposed of vide order dated 12.11.2008 (Annexure P/10) in terms of order passed in C.W.P. No. 10003 of 2005, decided on 12.11.2008, wherein direction was issued to decide the application under Section 11 of the Act within a specified period. Now, application under Section 11 of the Act stands decided and appeal against that also stands dismissed. The concurrent findings of fact have recorded by the Collector, as well as the Commissioner that petitioners are gair marusi and in column no.9, the land has been shown to be on “chakota” at the rate of Rs.80/- per year per acre. Besides this, finding has been recorded that in the affidavit of the petitioner dated 09.01.1954 the land is described as “Banjar Kadim” on 09.01.1954. How can it be in cultivating possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has failed to prove his possession prior to 26.01.1950, as such, he cannot claim any right to remain on the land in question. The lessee cannot deny the title of his landlord. In the present case, even the title suit of the petitioner has been dismissed and the Gram Panchayat has been held to be the owner. 3 CWP No. 12027 of 2010 In view of the above, the present writ petition is devoid of merit. Dismissed. (PARAMJEET SINGH) JUDGE November 29, 2011 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkd JUDGE 4