Civil Writ Petition No. 12053 of 1993 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 12053 of 1993 Date of decision:- 29.07.2011 Ram Chander ....Petitioner Vs. Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present:- Mr. Jagbir Singh, Advocate, for Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Mr. Deepak Balyan, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. Y.P. Malik, Advocate, for respondent No.4-Gram Panchayat. ***** A.N. JINDAL, J (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 27.04.1992 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Assistant Collector Ist, Grade, Rohtak, whereby the petitioner was ordered to be evicted from the disputed shop and order dated 02.03.1993 (Annexure P- 5), whereby appeal filed by the petitioner against the above said order was rejected by the Collector, Rohtak. Petitioner has also sought quashing of the order dated 02.09.1993 ( Annexure P-6), whereby revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. Civil Writ Petition No. 12053 of 1993 2 The Collector, Rohtak, vide its order dated 02.03.1993, has held that the shop vests in the Gram Panchayat and the possession of the petitioner over the shop in question is illegal. The relevant extract of the said order is reproduced as under:- “I have heard the arguments (sic) of learned counsel for both the sides and have perused evidence and documents on the file and have perused the record of the lower Court carefully. It has been found from the perusal of the file that the Gram Panchayat, is the owner of the disputed shop. It is clear from the copy of the Jamabandi for the year 1989- 90 and this fact is admitted by the Appellant also. This shop was given to the appellant on lease for one year. After that the lease period was not extended. Village Sampla is not a town and is a village only and it does not come under the Public Premises Act. Under the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, Civil Court has no jurisdiction to interfere. The possession of the appellant over this shop is illegal and therefore, I do not think it proper to interfere in the decision passed by the Lower Court dated 27.04.1992. Therefore, I do not find any force in the appeal of the appellant and therefore, it is rejected. The file may be consigned to record room, after compliance.” Sd/ Collector, Rohtak dated:02.03.1993 On bare perusal of the aforesaid order, it transpires that the shop in question vests in the Gram Panchayat, as has been admitted by the petitioner. Secondly, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any suit regarding the village common land. It is a fact that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the issues with regard to the ownership of the land vesting in the Gram Panchayat and if the petitioner wanted to get his title established, then he could move an application under Section 13- Civil Writ Petition No. 12053 of 1993 3 A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. Furthermore, it has also been brought to my notice that the area of village Sampla has been extended and now the Municipal Committee is working in its place. In these circumstances, the present petition is hereby dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to surrender possession of the premises to the authorities forthwith. (A.N.JINDAL) 29th of July, 2011 JUDGE ajp