IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 15567 of 2011 Date of decision : 25.08.2011 Gurdeep Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. RANJIT SINGH J. Respondent-Gram Panchayat had filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act for ejectment of the petitioner from the land measuring 4 kanal 13 marlas comprised of khasra No. 21/2/2 (4-13) and also from the land measuring 12 kanals, out of total khewat measuring 84 kanal 12 marla in khewat No. 132 in village Gillan Wala Tehsil and District. Ferozepur. The petitioner contested the jurisdiction of the Collector besides pleading that the Gram Panchayat was not the owner of the land in dispute. The petitioner claimed continuous, uninterrupted possession over the land hostile to the inhabitants. The Collector however, allowed the application of the Gram Panchayat by holding that in the jamabandi for the year 2000-01, the Gram Panchayat was shown as the owner of the land in dispute. The petitioner had filed an appeal against this order and the Director had remanded the case back to the Collector for conducting a demarcation and then deciding about the illegal possession or otherwise. The grievance of the Civil Writ Petition No. 15567 of 2011 -2- petitioner is that without conducting any demarcation, the Collector has again allowed the application of the Gram Panchayat. Being aggrieved against the same, the petitioner again filed appeal before the Joint Development Commissioner, who has dismissed the same. The petitioner, therefore, has filed this writ petition to challenge the order passed by the Collector as well by the Commissioner. The perusal of the order passed by the Collector would show that demarcation of the disputed land was got conducted by Tehsildar Ferozepur. The report in this regard was submitted on 10.07.2009. The petitioner, Gurdeep Singh, had then stopped the Tehsildar from conducting the demarcation and had in fact admitted at the spot that he was in possession of 10 marla land and land measuring 7 kanals whereas the rest of the land was stated to be in illegal possession of other cultivators. The petitioner had the audacity to state that he will leave the possession if the other illegal encroachers are also evicted. In this background, the petitioner cannot be heard now to challenge the order on the ground that no demarcation was done. During the course of arguments, the petitioner could not point out to any document or record to show or indicate his title to the land. The petitioner is in an illegal possession and, thus, has been rightly ordered to be evicted. No case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is made out. Dismissed. August 25, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) rts JUDGE