Civil Writ Petition No.6324 of 2009 : 1 : ***** Bhima Vs. Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar and others Present: Mr.S.S.Nara, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** The petitioner has impugned the orders passed by the Assistant Collector, Collector and Commissioner directing the ejectment on an application filed by the Gram Panchayat under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”). Assistant Collector after making reference to the evidence and the material on record, recorded the following findings:- “1. Gram Panchayat is the owner of the disputed land as per Exhibit A.-3, copy of Jamabandi for the year 1996- 97, which is produced by Panchayat. 2. As per Exhibit A.-1, copy of demarcation report, Khasra No.19//14, measuring 06 Kanal 08 Marla land is under the possession of respondent. 3. From the statements of the witnesses it is also proved that the respondent has taken the benefit of the disputed land by cultivating it and Gram Panchayat has never given this land to the respondent at lease, rent or share-cropping basis from which his cultivation is proved as illegal. Civil Writ Petition No.6324 of 2009 : 2 : 4. Respondent has not produced any such proof in the file from which it can be proved that Gram Panchayat is not the owner of the disputed land and he is the owner of the disputed land or comes under any Exception clause of the village common land rules and regulations.” Against this, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was rejected on merits as well as on the ground that he had not deposited the amount and, thus, was not entitled to be heard on merits. In addition, the petitioner also makes a grievance that the observation made by the Appellate Court that in case he has a dispute about the title, then he has a right to approach the judicial court. According to the petitioner, he has no remedy to approach the civil court. It is barred. The observation made by the Appellate Court cannot be read to mean that it is meant for the petitioner to approach the civil court. Otherwise, Appellate Court has rightly declined to interfere in the impugned order. This part of the submission was not made before the Commissioner obviously because the observation of the Appellate Court was not to the effect that the petitioner can approach the civil court for deciding the question of title. The Commissioner has considered the documents and the evidence and the view taken by the Assistant Collector as well as the Collector and have rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner did not attach any proof with the petition showing his title to the property in question. In this view of the matter, the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the authorities were required to decide the title since he has raised one, would also not be made out. As per Section 7 of the Act, Civil Writ Petition No.6324 of 2009 : 3 : the petitioner was required to place material on record which would have shown the dispute in regard to the title and only then the authorities were required to decide title of the suit. In this view of the matter, the submission that the Assistant Collector was required to decide the title once it was raised would not require consideration because admittedly no material was placed on record to dispute the title. The judgments Ladu Ram Vs. The Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar and others, Vol.CLIV-(2009-2) The Punjab Law Reporter 99, Amrik Singh Vs. Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab and others, 2007(2) L.A.R. 102 and Ranjit Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2008(1) L.A.R. 376 are, thus, not attracted to the facts of the present case. No case for interference in the impugned order is made out. Dismissed. April 27, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE