C.W.P No.11109 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. C.W.P No.11109 of 2008 Date of Decision: 02.07.2008 Jal Singh and others ....Petitioners. Versus The Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala etc. ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S. Khehar. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sham Sunder. Present: Mr. Mahavir Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioners. ... J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral). The Gram Panchayat of village Dharampur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, moved an application under section 7(2) of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 1961 Act), staking its claim on some land falling in Sr. No.211. The aforesaid land comprised of a “kuan” (well) and its adjoining land, besides a hand-pump and 15 feet wide street. According to the Gram Panchayat, the land in question was Shamlat Deh, and as such, vested in the Gram Panchayat. Whereas, according to the petitioner (against whom the aforesaid application was filed), he was the owner thereof on account of having purchased the land comprised in Sr. No.170 from one Sita Ram. According to the petitioner, after acquiring the land under reference, he had raised a boundary wall around the same. It was also the claim of the Gram C.W.P No.11109 of 2008 2 Panchayat, that the petitioner desired to illegally occupy the land of the Gram Panchayat, falling in Sr. No.212 as well. It would be pertinent to mention, that the land falling in Sr. No.212 is situated in front of the land described hereinabove. The Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Yamuna Nagar, by his order dated 23.2.2004 arrived at the conclusion, that the land in question belong to the Gram Panchayat and the residents of the village, including the petitioner, were in illegal possession thereon. He also recorded a finding, that the land comprised in Sr. No.211 of “kuan” and in Sr. No.212 was essentially Shamlat Deh, vested in the Gram Panchayat. The Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Yamuna Nagar, accordingly, ordered the ejectment of all the unauthorised occupants from the land. The petitioner herein Jal Singh preferred an appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Yamuna Nagar. The aforesaid appeal was, however, dismissed on 14.5.2007. The Collector, Yamuna Nagar, while dismissing the appeal, directed Jal Singh and the other illegal occupants of the land in question to be ejected therefrom. It is, therefore, that Jal Singh and the other persons similarly situated as him, preferred a revision petition under section 13-B of the 1961 Act, challenging the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Yamuna Nagar, as well as, by the Collector, Yamuna Nagar. In disposing of the aforesaid revision petition, the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, by his order dated 6.2.2008, upheld the determination rendered by the lower authorities. It is in these circumstances, that the petitioner has approached this Court by impugning the orders dated 23.2.2004, 14.5.2007 and 6.2.2008. During the course of hearing, we confronted the learned C.W.P No.11109 of 2008 3 counsel for the petitioner, with the conclusion drawn in the order passed by the Collector, Yamuna Nagar, dated 14.5.2007 to the effect, that Jal Singh and the other appellants and later revisionists, had not produced any proof either before the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Yamuna Nagar or before the Collector, on the basis whereof they could establish their ownership over the “kuan” and its adjoining land. In order to demonstrate, that the aforesaid conclusion recorded by the executive authority was incorrect, learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to three annexures appended to the instant writ petition, namely, Annexure P-5, Annexure P-6 and Annexure P-7. The claim of the petitioner for ownership in respect of the land of which he is in occupation, is solely based on the aforesaid three documents. We have perused Annexure P-5 dated 9.3.2001, Annexure P-6 dated 20.4.2001 and Annexure P-7 dated 1.6.2001. It would be pertinent to mention, that all the three documents are “agreements to sell” recorded on non-judicial stamp papers of Rs.4/-, Rs.4/- and Rs.5/- respectively. It is not possible for us to accept the claim of the petitioner on the issue of ownership in respect of the disputed land based on the three “agreements to sell” referred to above. In our view, the petitioner has failed to establish any right or title to the land in question. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the impugned orders dated 23.2.2004, 14.5.2007 and 6.2.2008. Dismissed. ( J.S. Khehar ) Judge. ( Sham Sunder ) 02.07.2008 Judge. sk. C.W.P No.11109 of 2008 4